THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 
THE  NEW  THEOLOGY 

EDlfED  BT 

m.RATORREir 


DEC  29 1920 


Divislou     ^^500 


Section 


The  Higher  Cricicism 


AND 


The  New  Theology 


UNSCIENTIFIC,    UNSCRIPTURAL,   AND 
UNWHOLESOME 


Edited  by 
DR.    R.   A.^TORREY 


>NiiW   YOK.X  : 

GOSrKL  I'UBUSHING  HOUSE, 
D.  T.  Bam.  Mgi.  I^ESTERSHiaB,  N.  Y. 


Copyright,  1911,  by 
R.  A.  TORREY 


Thb  Higher  Cairicisai 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.     The  Moral  Glory  of  Jesus  Christ  a  Proof 

OF  Inspiration           •         ....  7 

II.     The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism         .  29 

III.  Fall.\cies  of  the  Higher  Criticism     .        .  69 

IV.  Christ  and  Criticism c)4 

V.     The  Testimony  of  the  Monuments  to  the 

Truth   of  the  Scriptures     .        .        .113 
VI.     The  Recent  Testimony  of  Archaeology  to 

THE  Scriptures 138 

VII.     The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible — Definition, 

Extent  and  Proof 159 

VIII.     The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ        .        .         .198 
IX.     The   Certainty   and   Importance   of   the 
Real    and    Bodily    Resurrection    of 
Jesus  Christ  from  the  Dead        .        .  214 
X.     The    Deity    of    Oi'r    Lord    and    Saviour, 

Jesus  Christ 241 

XI.     The  Deity  of  Christ 249 

Xll.     The   Bible   Teaching   Regarding    Future 

Punishment 258 

XIII.  Tributes    to    Christ    and    the    Bible    by 

Brainy  Men   Not   Known  as  Active 
Christians 275 

XIV.  A   Personal  Testimony         .        .        .        .281 


INTRODUCTION 

The  words  "The  Higher  Criticism"  used  in  the  title  of  this 
book  are  not  altogether  satisfactory,  for  "The  Higher  Criti- 
cism" taken  in  its  original  and  strict  sense,  as  denoting  liter- 
ary criticism  as  distinguished  from  "the  lower"  or  textual 
criticism,  is  not  necessarily  unscientific,  nor  unscriptural,  nor 
unwholesome.  There  is  a  legitimate  "higher"  criticism  of 
this  kind.  In  actual  usage,  however,  and  in  the  common 
understanding  to-day,  the  words  "Higher  Criticism"  denote  a 
certain  type  of  literary  criticism  that  follows  unscientific  and 
even  absurd  methods  and  has  reached  unwarranted  and  false 
results,  and  that  is  utterly  mischievous.  When  the  words  "The 
Higher  Criticism"  are  used  to-day  almost  everyone  under- 
stands them  to  apply  to  this  type  of  criticism,  and  so  we 
have  used  it  in  the  title  of  the  present  book.  The  words  "The 
New  Theology"  are  not  altogether  satisfactory.  This  phrase 
came  into  quite  common  use  something  over  thirty  years  ago 
to  denote  a  certain  type  of  theology  that  was  not  at  all  new 
even  in  those  days,  but  was  new  in  supposedly  orthodox 
churches.  A  few  years  ago  these  words  were  taken  up  again 
as  a  battle  cry  in  England  by  a  school  of  erratic  thinkers.  We 
use  these  words  in  the  title  of  the  book  because  to  the  common 
mind  they  denote  a  certain  type  of  theological  thought  that 
has  proved  fascinating  to  many  ministers  of  the  Gospel  and  to 
many  laymen,  and  that  has  wrought  terrible  havoc  in  the 
life  and  work  of  our  churches.  It  would  be  difficult  to  ex- 
actly define  "the  new  theology,"  but  it  stands  in  a  general  way 

5 


Introduction 

for  the  denial  or  questioning  of  the  authority  of  the  Bible  as 
the  Inerrant  Word  of  God ;  for  the  denial  or  questioning  of 
the  real  Deity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ ;  for  the 
denial  or  questioning*  of  the  virgin  birth  of  our  Lord  and  of 
His  literal,  bodily,  resurrection  from  the  dead ;  for  the  denial 
or  questioning  of  the  vicarious  atonement;  and  for  the  denial 
or  questioning  of  the  eternal,  conscious  sufifering  of  those  who 
die  impenitent.  This  book  aims  to  put  into  succinct  and  read- 
ily usable  form  the  proof  that  both  ''the  Higher  Criticism" 
and  **the  New  Theology"  are  unscientific,  unscriptural  and 
unwholesome. 

Many  of  the  chapters  in  this  book  are  taken  by  permission 
from  a  series  of  volumes  called  "Fundamentals"  which  are 
being  published  at  the  expense  of  two  Christian  laymen  and 
sent  without  cost  to  ministers  of  the  Gospel  and  some  other 
Christian  workers  throughout  the  world.  Other  chapters  and 
topics,  which  have  not  as  yet  been  fully  treated  in  **Funda- 
mentals"  are  added  by  the  compiler. 


6 


The  Higher  Criticism  and 
The  New  Theology 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  MORAL  GLORY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST  A  PROOF 
OF  INSPIRATION 

BY  DR.  WM.  G.   MOOREHEAD,   PRESIDENT  OF  XENIA  THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY,  XENIA,   OHIO,    U.   S.   A. 

The  glories  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Qirist  are  threefold :  Es- 
sential, official  and  moral.  His  essential  glory  is  that  which 
pertains  to  Him  as  the  Son  of  God,  the  equal  of  the  Father. 
His  official  glory  is  that  which  belongs  to  Him  as  the  ]\Iedia- 
tor.  It  is  the  reward  conferred  on  Him,  the  august  promotion 
He  received  when  He  had  brought  His  great  work  to  a  final 
and  triumphant  conclusion.  His  moral  glory  consists  of  the 
perfections  which  marked  His  earthly  life  and  ministry;  per- 
fections which  attached  to  every  relation  He  sustained,  and 
to  every  circumstance  in  which  He  was  found.  His  essen- 
tial and  official  glories  were  commonly  veiled  during  His 
earthly  sojourn.  His  moral  glory  could  not  be  hid ;  He  could 
not  be  less  than  perfect  in  everything;  it  belonged  to  Him; 
it  was  Himself.  This  moral  glory  now  illumines  every  page 
of  the  four  Gospels,  as  once  it  did  every  path  He  trod. 

7 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theology 

The  thesis  which  we  undertake  to  illustrate  and  establish 
is  this :  That  the  moral  glory  of  Jesus  Christ  as  set  forth  in 
the  four  Gospels  cannot  be  the  product  of  the  unaided  human 
intellect,  that  only  the  Spirit  of  God  is  competent  to  execute 
this  matchless  portrait  of  the  Son  of  Man.  The  discussion  of 
the  theme  falls  into  two  parts :  I.  A  brief  survey  of  Christ's 
moral  glory  as  exhibited  in  the  Gospels.  II.  The  application 
of  the  argument. 

L  CHRIST'S  MORAL  GLORY 

THE  HUMANITY  OF  JESUS 

I.  The  moral  glory  of  Jesus  appears  in  His  development 
as  Son  of  Man.  The  nature  which  He  assumed  was  our  na- 
ture, sin  and  sinful  propensities  only  excepted.  His  was  a 
real  and  a  true  humanity,  one  which  must  pass  through  the 
various  stages  of  growth  like  any  other  member  of  the  race. 
From  infancy  to  youth,  from  youth  to  manhood,  there  was 
steady  increase  both  of  His  bodily  powers  and  mental  facul- 
ties; but  the  progress  was  orderly.  "No  unhealthy  precocity 
marked  the  holiest  of  infancies."  He  was  first  a  child,  and 
afterwards  a  man,  not  a  man  in  child's  years. 

As  Son  of  Man  He  was  compassed  about  with  all  the 
sinless  infirmities  that  belong  to  our  nature.  He  has  needs 
common  to  all ;  need  of  food,  of  rest,  of  human  sympathy  and 
of  divine  assistance.  He  is  subject  to  Joseph  and  Mary,  He 
is  a  worshiper  in  the  synagogue  and  the  Temple;  He  weeps 
over  the  guilty  and  hardened  city,  and  at  the  grave  of  a  loved 
one ;  He  expresses  His  dependence  on  God  by  prayer. 

Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the  Gospel  narratives 
present  the  Lord  Jesus  as  a  true  man,  a  veritable  member  of 


The  Moral  Glory  of  the  Lord  Jesus 

our  race.  But  we  no  sooner  recognize  this  truth  than  we  arc 
confronted  by  another  which  sets  these  records  alone  and 
unapproachable  in  the  field  of  literature.  This  second  fact 
is  this:  At  every  stage  of  His  development,  in  every  relation 
of  life,  in  every  part  of  His  service  He  is  absolutely  perfect. 
To  no  part  of  His  life  does  a  mistake  attach,  over  no  part  of 
it  does  a  cloud  rest,  nowhere  is  there  defect.  Nothing  is  more 
striking,  more  unexampled,  than  the  profound  contrast  be- 
tween Jesus  and  the  conflict  and  discord  around  Him,  than 
between  Him  and  those  who  stood  nearest  Him,  the  disciples, 
John  Baptist,  and  the  mother,  Mary.  All  fall  immeasurably 
below  Him. 

THE    PATTERN    MAN 

2.  The  Gospels  exalt  our  Lord  infinitely  above  all  other 
men  as  the  representative,  the  ideal,  the  pattern  man.  Noth- 
ing in  the  judgment  of  historians  stands  out  so  sharply  dis- 
tinct as  race,  national  character — nothing  is  more  ineffaceable. 
The  very  greatest  men  are  unable  to  free  themselves  from  the 
influences  amid  which  they  have  been  born  and  educated. 
Peculiarities  of  race  and  the  spirit  of  the  age  leave  in  their 
characters  traces  that  are  imperishable.  To  the  last  fiber  of 
his  being  Luther  was  German,  Calvin  was  French,  Knox  was 
Scotch;  Augustine  bears  the  unmistakable  impress  of  the 
Roman,  and  Chrysostom  is  as  certainly  Greek.  Paul,  with  all 
his  large  heartedness  and  sympathies  is  a  Jew,  always  a  Jew. 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  One  who  is  justly  entitled  to  be  called 
the  Catholic  Man.  Nothing  local,  transient,  individualizing, 
national,  or  sectarian  dwarfs  the  proportions  of  His  won- 
drous character.  "He  rises  above  the  parentage,  the  blood, 
the  narrow  horizon  which  bounded,  as  it  seemed,  His  life; 
for  He  is  the  archetypal  man  in  whose  presence  distinctions 

9 


Th$  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theology 

of  race,  intervals  of  ages,  types  of  civilization  and  degrees  of 
mental  culture  are  as  nothing"  (Liddon).  He  belongs  to  all 
ages,  He  is  related  to  all  men,  whether  they  shiver  amid  the 
snows  of  the  arctic  circle,  or  pant  beneath  the  burning  heat  of 
the  equator;  for  He  is  the  Son  of  Man,  the  Son  of  mankind, 
the  genuine  offspring  of  the  race. 

UNSELFISHNESS    AND    DIGNITY 

3.  The  Lord's  moral  glory  appears  in  His  unselfishness 
and  personal  dignity.  The  entire  absence  of  selfishness  in  any 
form  from  the  character  of  the  Lord  Jesus  is  another  remark- 
able feature  of  the  Gospels.  He  had  frequent  and  fair  oppor- 
tunities of  gratifying  ambition  had  His  nature  been  tainted 
with  that  passion.  But  ''even  Christ  pleased  not  himself;"  He 
"sought  not  his  own  glory;"  He  came  not  "to  do  his  ov/n  will." 
His  body  and  His  soul  with  all  the  faculties  and  activities  of 
each  v/ere  devoted  to  the  supreme  aims  of  His  mission.  His 
self-sacrifice  included  the  whole  range  of  His  human  thought 
and  affection  and  action ;  it  lasted  throughout  His  life ;  its 
highest  expression  was  His  ignominious  death  on  the  cross  of 
Calvary. 

The  strange  beauty  of  His  unselfishness  as  it  is  displayed 
in  the  Gospel  narratives  appears  in  this,  that  it  never  seeks  to 
draw  attention  to  itself,  it  deprecates  publicity.  In  His  humil- 
ity He  seems  as  one  naturally  contented  with  obscurity;  as 
wanting  the  restless  desire  for  eminence  which  is  common  to 
really  great  men ;  as  eager  and  careful  that  even  His  miracles 
should  not  add  to  His  reputation.  But  amid  all  His  self- 
sacrificing  humility  He  never  loses  His  personal  dignity  nor 
the  self-respect  that  becomes  Him.  He  receives  ministry  from 
the  lowly  and  the  lofty;  He  is  sometimes  hungry,  yet  feeds 

10 


The  Moral  Glory  of  the  Lord  Jesus 

the  mnUitudes  in  desert  places;  He  has  no  money,  yet  He 
never  bc^s,  and  He  provides  the  coin  for  tribute  to  the  gov- 
ernment from  a  fish's  mouth.  He  may  ask  for  a  cup  of  water 
at  the  well,  ])ut  it  is  that  He  may  save  a  soul.  He  never  flies 
from  enemies ;  He  quietly  withdraws  or  passes  by  unseen. 
Hostility  neither  excites  nor  exasperates  Him.  He  is  always 
calm,  serene.  He  seems  to  care  little  for  Himself,  for  His 
own  ease  or  comfort  or  safety,  but  everything  for  the  honor 
and  the  glory  of  the  Father.  H  multitudes,  eager  and  expect- 
ant, press  upon  Him,  shouting,  "Hosanna  to  the  son  of  Da- 
vid," He  is  not  elated;  if  all  fall  away,  stunned  by  His  words 
of  power,  He  is  not  cast  dov»n.  He  sought  not  a  place  among 
nien,  He  was  calmly  content  to  be  the  Lord's  Servant,  the 
obedient  and  the  humble  One.  It  was  invariably  true  of  Him 
that  "He  pleased  not  Himself." 

And  yet  through  all  His  amazing  self-renunciation,  there 
glances  ever  and  anon  something  of  the  infinite  majesty  and 
supreme  dignity  which  belong  to  Him  because  He  is  the  Son 
of  God.  The  words  of  Van  Oosterzee  are  as  true  as  they  are 
beautiful  and  significant :  "It  is  the  same  King's  Son  who 
to-day  dwells  in  the  palace  of  His  Father,  and  to-morrow,  out 
of  love  to  His  rebellious  subjects  in  a  remote  corner  of  the 
Kingdom,  renouncing  His  princely  glory,  comes  to  dwell 
amongst  them  in  the  form  of  a  servant  *  *  *  and  is 
known  only  by  the  dignity  of  His  look,  and  the  star  of  royalty 
on  His  breast,  when  the  mean  cloak  is  opened  for  a  moment, 
apparently  by  accident." 

SUPERIORITY    TO    HUMAN    JUBGMENT   AND    INTERCESSION 

4.  The  Gospels  exhibit  the  Lord  Jesus  as  superior  to  the 
judgment  and  the  intercession  of  men.     When  challenged  by 

II 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

the  disciples  and  by  enemies,  as  He  often  was,  Jesus  never 
apologizes,  never  excuses  Himself,  never  confesses  to  a  mis- 
take. When  the  disciples,  terrified  by  the  storm  on  the  lake, 
awoke  Him  saying-,  "Master,  carest  thou  not  that  we  perish?" 
He  did  not  vindicate  His  sleep,  nor  defend  His  apparent  indif- 
ference to  their  fears.  Martha  and  Mary,  each  in  turn,  with 
profound  grief,  say,  "Lord,  if  thou  hadst  been  here,  my  brother 
had  not  died."  There  is  not  a  minister  of  the  gospel  the 
world  over  who  would  not  in  similar  circumstances  explain  or 
try  to  explain  why  he  could  not  at  once  repair  to  the  house  of 
mourning  when  summoned  thither.  But  Jesus  does  not  ex- 
cuse His  not  being  there,  nor  His  delay  of  two  days  in  the 
place  where  He  was  when  the  urgent  message  of  the  sisters 
reached  Him.  In  the  consciousness  of  the  perfect  rectitude  of 
His  ways,  He  only  replies,  "Thy  brother  shall  rise  again." 
Peter  once  tried  to  admonish  Him,  saying,  "This  be  far  from 
thee.  Lord;  this  shall  not  be  unto  thee."  But  Peter  had  to 
learn  that  it  was  Satan  that  prompted  the  admonition.  Nor 
does  He. recall  a  word  when  the  Jews  rightly  inferred  from 
His  language  that  He  "being  man  made  Himself  God"  (John 
10:30-36).  He  pointed  out  the  application  of  the  name  Elo- 
him  (God)  to  judges  under  the  theocracy;  and  yet  He  irre- 
sistibly implies  that  His  title  to  Divinity  is  higher  than,  and 
distinct  in  kind  from,  that  of  the  Jewish  magistrates.  He 
thus  arrives  a  second  time  at  the  assertion  which  had  given 
so  great  offense,  by  announcing  His  identity  with  the  Father, 
which  involves  His  own  proper  Deity.  The  Jews  understood 
Him.  He  did  not  retract  what  they  accounted  blasphemy,  and 
they  again  sought  His  life.  He  is  never  mistaken,  and  never 
retracts. 

So  likewise  He  is  superior  to  human  intercession.     He 
never  asks  even  His  disciples  nor  His  nearest  friends,  and 

12 


The  Moral  Glory  of  the  Lord  Jesus 

certainly  never  His  mother  Mary,  to  pray  for  Him.  In  Ccth- 
scmane  He  asked  tlic  tliree  to  watch  witli  Him,  He  did  not 
ask  them  to  pray  for  Him.  He  bade  them  pray  that  they  might 
not  enter  into  temptation,  but  He  did  not  ask  them  to  pray 
that  He  should  not,  nor  that  He  should  be  delivered  out  of  it. 
Paul  wrote  a^^ain  and  ap^ain,  "Brethren,  pray  for  us" — "pray 
for  me."  But  such  was  not  the  language  of  Jesus.  It  is 
worthy  of  note  that  the  Lord  does  not  place  His  own  people 
on  a  level  with  Himself  in  His  prayers.  He  maintains  the 
distance  of  His  own  personal  dignity  and  supremacy  between 
Himself  and  them.  In  His  intercession  He  never  uses  plural 
personal  pronouns  in  His  petitions.  He  always  says,  "I"  and 
"me,"  "these"  and  "them  that  thou  hast  given  me ;"  never 
"we"  and  "us,"  as  we  speak  and  should  speak  in  our  prayers. 

THE  SINLESSNESS   OF   JESUS 

5.  The  sinlessness  of  the  Saviour  witnesses  to  His  moral 
glory.  The  Gospels  present  us  with  one  solitary  and  unique 
fact  of  human  history — an  absolutely  sinless  Man !  In  His 
birth  immaculate,  in  His  childhood,  youth  and  manhood,  in 
public  and  private,  in  death  and  in  life,  He  was  faultless.  Hear 
some  witnesses.  There  is  the  testimony  of  His  enemies.  For 
three  long  years  the  Pharisees  were  watching  their  victim.  As 
another  writes,  "There  was  the  Pharisee  mingling  in  every 
crowd,  hiding  behind  every  tree.  They  examined  His  disci- 
ples, they  cross-questioned  all  around  Him.  They  looked  into 
His  ministerial  life,  into  His  domestic  privacy,  into  His  hours 
of  retirement.  They  came  forward  with  the  sole  accusation 
they  could  muster — that  He  had  shown  disrespect  to  Caesar. 
The  Roman  judge  who  ought  to  know,  pronounced  it  void." 
There  was  another  spv — Jndas.  Had  tlicre  bacn  one  failure  in 

13 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theology 

the  Redeemer's  career,  in  his  awful  agony  Judas  wSuld  have 
remembered  it  for  his  comfort;  but  the  bitterness  of  his  de- 
spair, that  which  made  his  hfe  intolerable,  was,  *'I  have  be- 
trayed the  innocent  blood." 

There  is  the  testimony  of  His  friends.  His  disciples  affirm 
that  during  their  intercourse  with  Him  His  life  was  unsullied. 
Had  there  been  a  single  blemish  they  would  have  detected 
it,  and,  honest  historians  as  they  were,  they  would  have  re- 
corded it,  just  as  they  did  their  own  shortcomings  and  blun- 
ders. The  purest  and  most  austere  man  that  lived  in  that  day, 
John  the  Baptist,  shrank  from  baptizing  the  Holy  One,  and  in 
conscious  unworthiness  he  said,  'T  have  need  to  be  baptized  of 
thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me?"  Nor  is  His  own  testimony 
to  be  overlooked.  Jesus  never  once  confesses  sin.  He  never 
once  asks  for  pardon.  Yet  is  it  not  He  w-ho  so  sharply  re- 
bukes the  self-righteousness  of  the  Pharisees?  Does  He  not, 
in  His  teaching,  seem  to  ignore  all  human  piety  that  is  not 
based  upon  a  broken  heart?  But  yet  He  never  lets  fall  a 
hint.  He  never  breathes  a  prayer  which  implies  the  slightest 
trace  of  blameworthiness.  He  paints  the  doom  of  incorrigible 
and  unrepentant  sinners  in  the  most  dreadful  colors  found  in 
the  entire  Bible,  but  He  Himself  feels  no  apprehension.  He 
expresses  no  dread  of  the  penal  future;  His  peace  of  mind, 
His  fellowship  with  Almighty  God,  is  never  disturbed  nor 
interrupted.  If  He  urge  sorrow  upon  others  and  tears  of 
penitence,  it  is  for  their  sins;  if  He  groan  in  agony,  it  is  not 
for  sins  of  His  own,  it  is  for  others'.  He  challenges  His  bit- 
terest enemies  to  convict  Him  of  Sin  (John  8:46).  Nor  is 
this  all.  "The  soul,"  it  has  been  said,  "like  the  body  has  its 
pores,"  and  the  pores  are  always  open.  "Instinctively,  uncon- 
sciously, and  whether  a  man  will  or  not,  the  insignificance  or 
the  greatness  of  the  inner  life  always  reveals  itself."    From  its 

14 


The  Moral  Glory  of  the  Lord  Je^us 

very  center  and  essence  tlie  moral  nature  is  ever  throwing^  out 
about  itself  circles  of  influence,  encompasses  itself  with  an 
atmosphere  of  self-disclosure.  In  Jesus  Christ  this  self-reve- 
lation was  not  involuntary,  nor  accidental,  nor  forced :  it  was 
in  the  highest  degree  deliberate.  There  is  about  Him  an  air  of 
superior  holiness,  of  aloofness  from  the  world  and  its  ways,  a 
separation  from  evil  in  every  form  and  of  every  grade,  such 
as  no  other  that  has  ever  lived  has  displayed.  Although  de- 
scended from  an  impure  ancestry,  lie  brought  no  taint  of  sin 
into  the  world  with  Him;  and  though  He  mingled  with  sinful 
men  and  was  assailed  by  fierce  temptations,  He  contracted  no 
guilt,  He  was  touched  by  no  stain.  He  was  not  merely  unde- 
filed,  but  He  was  undefilable.  He  was  like  a  ray  of  light  which 
parting  from  the  fountain  of  light  can  pass  through  the  foulest 
medium  and  still  be  unstained  and  untouched.  He  came  down 
into  all  the  circumstances  of  actual  humanity  in  its  sin  and 
miser}%  and  yet  He  kept  the  infinite  purity  of  heaven  with 
Him.  In  the  annals  of  our  race  there  is  none  next  to  or  like 
Him. 

ASSEMBLAGE  AXD  CORRELATION   OF  VIRTUES 

6.  The  exquisite  assemblage  and  correlation  of  virtues 
and  excellencies  in  the  Lord  Jef^us  form  another  remarkable 
feature  of  the  Gospel  narratives.  There  have  been  those  who 
have  displayed  distinguished  traits  of  character ;  those  who  by 
reason  of  extraordinary  gifts  have  risen  to  heights  which  are 
Inaccessible  to  the  great  mass  of  men.  But  who  among  the 
mightiest  of  men  has  shown  himself  to  be  evenly  balanced  and 
rightly  poised  in  all  his  faculties  and  powers?  In  the  very 
greatest  and  best,  inequality  and  disproportion  arc  encoun- 
tered. Generally,  the  failings  and  vices  of  men  are  in  the 
inverse  ratio  of  their  virtues  and  their  powers.     "The  tallest 

1'. 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

bodies  cast  the  longest  shadows/*  In  Jesus  Christ  there  is  no 
unevenness.  In  Him  there  is  no  preponderance  of  the  imagin- 
ation over  the  feeling,  of  the  intellect  over  the  imagination,  of 
the  v^ill  over  the  intellect.  There  is  in  Him  an  uninterrupted 
harmony  of  all  the  powers  of  body  and  soul,  in  which  that 
serves  which  should  serve,  and  that  rules  which  ought  to 
rule,  and  all  works  together  to  one  adorable  end.  In  Him 
every  grace  is  in  its  perfectness,  none  in  excess,  none  out 
of  place,  and  none  wanting.  His  justice  and  His  mercy.  His 
peerless  love  and  His  truth,  His  holiness  and  His  freest  par- 
don never  clash;  one  never  clouds  the  other.  His  firmness 
never  degenerates  into  obstinacy,  or  His  calmness  into  in- 
difference. His  gentleness  never  becomes  weakness,  nor  His 
elevation  of  eoul  forgetfulness  of  others.  In  His  best  ser- 
vants virtues  and  graces  are  uneven  and  often  clash.  Paul 
had  hours  of  weakness  and  even  of  petulance.  He  seems  to 
have  regretted  that  he  called  himself  a  Pharisee  in  the  Jew- 
ish Sanhedrin  and  appealed  to  that  party  for  help,  for  in  his 
address  before  the  proconsul  Felix  he  said,  "Or  let  these 
same  here  say,  if  they  found  any  evil  doing  in  me,  while  I 
stood  before  the  Council,  except  it  be  for  this  one  voice,  that  I 
cried  standing  among  them,  Touching  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  I  am  called  in  question  by  you  this  day."  John  the 
Apostle  of  love  even  wished  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven  to 
consume  the  inhospitable  Samaritans.  And  the  Virgin  mother 
must  learn  that  even  she  cannot  dictate  to  Him  as  to  what  He 
shall  do  or  not  do.  In  Jesus  there  is  the  most  perfect  balance, 
the  most  amazing  equipoise  of  every  faculty  and  grace  and 
duty  and  power.  In  His  whole  life  one  day's  walk  never  con- 
tradicts another,  one  hour's  service  never  clashes  with  an- 
other. While  He  sliows  He  is  master  of  nature's  tremendous 
forces,  and  the  Lord  of  the  unseen  world.  He  turns  asic^^  and 

i6 


The  Moral  Glory  of  the  Lord  Jesus 

lays  His  glory  by  to  take  little  children  in  His  arms  and  to 
bless  them.  While  He  must  walk  amid  the  snares  His  foes 
have  privily  spread  for  His  feet,  He  is  equal  to  every  occasion, 
is  in  harmony  with  the  rc(|uirements  of  every  moment.  "He 
never  speaks  where  it  would  be  better  to  keep  silence,  He 
never  keeps  silence  where  it  would  be  better  to  speak ;  and  He 
always  leaves  the  arena  of  controversy  a  victor."  His  unaf- 
fected majesty,  so  wonderfully  depicted  in  the  Gospels,  runs 
through  His  whole  life,  and  is  as  manifest  in  the  midst  of 
poverty  and  scorn,  at  Gethsemane  and  Calvary,  as  on  the 
Mount  of  Transfiguration  and  in  the  resurrection  from  the 
grave. 

OMNIPOTENCE   AND   OMNISCIENCE 

7.  The  evangelists  do  not  shrink  from  ascribing  to  the 
Lord  Jesus  divine  attributes,  particularly  Omnipotence  and 
Omniscience.  They  do  so  as  a  mere  matter  of  fact,  as  what 
might  and  should  be  expected  from  so  exalted  a  personage  as 
the  Lord  Jesus  was.  How  amazing  the  power  is  which  He 
wields  when  it  pleases  Him  to  do  so!  It  extends  to  the  forces 
of  nature.  At  His  word  the  storm  is  hushed  into  a  calm, 
and  the  raging  of  the  sea  ceases.  At  His  pleasure  He  walks 
on  the  water  as  on  dry  land.  It  extends  to  the  world  of  evil 
spirits.  At  His  presence  demons  cry  out  in  fear  and  quit 
th.eir  hold  on  their  victims.  His  power  extends  into  the 
realm  of  disease.  Every  form  of  sickness  departs  at  His 
command,  and  He  cures  the  sick  both  when  He  is  beside  them 
and  at  a  distance  from  them.  Death  likewise,  that  inexorable 
tyrant  that  wealth  has  never  bribed,  nor  tears  softened,  nor 
human  power  arrested,  yielded  instantly  his  prey  when  the 
voice  of  the  Son  of  God  bade  him. 

But  Jesus  equally  as  certainly  and  as  fully  possessed  a 

17 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

superhuman  range  of  knowledge  as  well  as  a  superhuman 
power.  He  knew  men;  knew  them  as  God  knows  them. 
Thus  He  saw  into  the  depths  of  Nathaniel's  heart  when  he 
was  under  the  fig  tree ;  He  saw  Into  the  depths  of  the  sea, 
and  the  exact  coin  in  the  mouth  of  a  particular  fish ;  He  read 
the  whole  past  life  of  the  woman  at  the  well,  although  He 
had  never  before  met  with  her.  John  tells  us  that  "He  needed 
not  that  any  should  testify  of  man:  for  he  knew  what  was 
in  man"  (John  ii:25).  He  knew  the  world  of  evil  spirits. 
He  was  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  movements  of  Satan 
and  of  demons.  He  said  to  Peter,  "Simon,  Simon,  behold, 
Satan  asked  to  have  you  that  he  might  sift  you  as  wheat:  I 
made  supplication  for  thee  that  thy  faith  fail  not"  (Luke  xxii : 
31,  32).  He  often  spoke  directly  to  the  evil  spirits  that  had 
control  of  people,  ordering  them  to  hold  their  peace,  to  come 
out  and  to  enter  no  more  into  their  victims.  He  knew  the 
Father  as  no  mere  creature  could  possibly  know  Him.  "All 
things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father:  and  no  man 
knoweth  the  Son,  save  the  Father ;  neither  doth  any  know  the 
Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth 
to  reveal  Him"    (Matt.  xi:27). 

A  difficulty  will  be  felt  when  we  attempt  to  reconcile  this 
infinite  knowledge  of  men,  of  the  unseen  world,  and  of  God 
Himself,  which  the  Son  of  God  possessed,  with  the  state- 
ment in  ]\Iark  that  He  did  not  know  the  day  nor  the  hour  of 
His  Second  Advent.  But  the  difficulty  is  no  greater  than 
that  other  in  John,  where  we  are  told  that  His  face  was  wet 
with  human  tears  while  the  almighty  voice  was  crying,  "Laz- 
arus, come  forth."  In  both  cases  the  divine  and  the  human 
are  seen  intermingling,  and  yet  they  are  perfectly  distinct. 

Such  are  some  of  the  beams  of  Christ's  moral  glories  as 
they  shine  everywhere  on  the  pages  of  the  Four  Gospels.    A 

18 


The  Mora!  Glory  of  the  Lord  Jesus 

very  few  of  them  nrc  here  gathered  together.  Nevertheless, 
what  a  stupendous  j  icturc  do  they  form!  In  the  annals  of 
our  race  there  is  no.hing  hkc  it.  Here  is  One  presented  to 
us  who  is  a  true  an  1  genuine  man,  and  yet  He  is  the  ideal, 
the  representative,  tlic  pattern  man,  claiming  kindred  in  the 
catholicity  of  His  manhood  with  all  men;  sinless,  yet  full  of 
tenderness  and  pity;  higher  than  the  highest,  yet  stooping  to 
the  lowest  and  to  the  most  needy ;  perfect  in  all  His  words 
and  ways,  in  His  life  and  in  His  death ! 

Who  taught  th.e  evangelists  to  draw  this  matchless  por- 
trait? The  pen  which  traced  these  glories  of  Jesus — could  it 
have  been  other  than  an  inspired  pen?  This  question  leads 
us  to  the  second  part  of  our  task,  which  can  soon  be  dis- 
posed of. 

H.  THE  APPLICATION  OF  THE  ARGUMENT 

Nothing  is  more  obvious  tlian  the  very  commonplace 
axiom,  that  every  efect  requires  an  adequate  cause.  Given  a 
piece  of  machinery,  complex,  delicate,  exact  in  all  its  move- 
ments, we  know  tl.at  it  must  be  the  product  of  a  competent 
mechanic.  Given  a  work  of  consummate  art,  we  know  it 
must  be  the  product  of  a  consummate  artist.  None  but  a 
sculptor  with  the  genius  of  an  Angelo  could  carve  the  "Moses." 
None  but  a  painter  with  the  hand,  the  eye,  and  the  brain  of  a 
Raphael  could  paint  tlie  "Transfiguration."  None  but  a  poet 
with  the  gifts  of  a  ?vIilton  could  write  "Paradise  Lost." 

Here  are  four  brief  records  of  our  Lord's  earthly  life. 
They  deal  almost  exclusively  with  His  public  ministry;  they 
do  not  profess  even  to  relate  all  that  He  did  in  His  official 
work  (cf.  John  xKi:25).  The  authors  of  these  memorials 
were  men  whose  names  are  as  household  words  the  world 

I? 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Neiu  Theology 

over ;  but  beyond  their  names  we  know  little  more.  The  first 
was  tax  collector  under  the  Roman  government;  the  sec- 
ond was,  it  is  generally  believed,  that  John  Mark  who  for 
a  time  served  as  an  attendant  on  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  who 
afterward  became  the  companion  and  fellow-laborer  of  Peter ; 
the  third  was  a  physician  and  the  devoted  friend  and  co- 
worker of  Paul;  and  the  fourth  was  a  fisherman.  Two  of 
them,  Matthew  and  John,  were  disciples  of  Jesus;  whether 
the  others,  Mark  and  Luke,  ever  saw  Him  during  His  earthly 
sojourn  cannot  be  determined. 

These  four  men,  unpracticed  in  the  art  of  writing,  unac- 
quainted with  the  ideals  of  antiquity,  write  the  memorials  of 
Jesus'  life.  Three  of  them  traverse  substantially  the  same 
ground,  record  the  same  incidents,  discourses  and  miracles. 
While  they  are  penetrated  with  the  profoundest  admiration 
for  their  Master,  they  never  once  dilate  on  His  great  qualities. 
All  that  they  do  is  to  record  His  actions  and  His  discourses 
with  scarcely  a  remark.  One  of  them  indeed,  John,  inter- 
mingles reflective  commentary  with  the  narrative;  but  in 
doing  this  John  carefully  abstains  from  eulogy  and  paneg}Tic. 
He  pauses  in  His  narrative  only  to  explain  some  reference,  to 
open  some  deep  saying  of  the  Lord,  or  to  press  some  vital 
truth.  Yet,  despite  this  absence  of  the  smallest  attempt  to 
delineate  a  character,  these  four  men  have  accomplished  what 
no  others  have  done  or  can  do — they  have  presented  the  world 
with  the  portrait  of  a  Divine  Man,  a  Glorious  Saviour.  Mat- 
thew describes  Him  as  the  promised  IMessiah,  the  glory  of 
Israel,  the  Son  of  David,  the  Son  of  Abraham;  the  One  in 
whom  the  covenants  and  the  promises  find  their  ample  ful- 
filment; the  One  who  accomplishes  all  righteousness.  I\Iark 
exhibits  Him  as  the  mighty  Servant  of  Jehovah  who  does 
man's  neglected  duty,  and  meets  the  need  of  all  around.  Luke 

20 


The  Mural  Glory  of  the  Lord  Jesus 

depicts  Him  as  the  Friend  of  man,  whose  love  is  so  intense 
and  comprehensive,  whose  pity  is  so  divine,  that  His  saving 
power  goes  forth  to  Jew  and  Gentile,  to  the  lowliest  and  the 
loftiest,  to  the  publican,  the  Samaritan,  the  ragged  prodigal, 
the  harlot,  the  thief,  as  well  as  to  the  cultivated,  the  moral, 
,  the  great.  John  presents  Him  as  the  Son  of  God,  the  Word 
made  flesh ;  as  Light  for  a  dark  world,  as  Dread  for  a  starving 
world,  as  Life  for  a  dead  world.  Matthew  writes  fur  the  Jew, 
Mark  for  the  Roman,  Luke  for  the  Greek,  and  John  for  the 
Christian ;  and  all  of  them  write  for  every  kindred,  and  tribe, 
and  tongue  and  people  of  the  entire  globe,  and  for  all  time ! 
What  the  philosopher,  the  poet,  the  scholar,  the  artist  could 
not  do ;  what  men  of  the  greatest  mind,  the  most  stupendous 
genius  have  failed  to  do,  these  four  unpracticed  men  have 
done — they  have  presented  to  the  world  the  Son  of  Man  and 
the  Son  of  God  in  all  His  perfections  and  glories. 

A   FACT   TO   BE   EXPL-MNED 

How  comes  it  to  pass  that  these  unlearned  and  ignorant 
men  (Acts  iv  :  13)  have  so  thoroughly  accomplished  so  great 
a  task?  Let  us  hold  fast  our  commonplace  axiom,  every 
effect  must  have  an  adequate  cause.  What  explanation  shall 
we  give  of  this  marvellous  effect?  Shall  we  ascribe  their 
work  to  genius?  But  multitudes  of  men  both  before  and  since 
their  day  have  possessed  genius  of  the  very  highest  order; 
and  these  gifted  men  have  labored  in  fields  akin  to  this  of 
our  four  evangelists.  The  mightiest  minds  of  the  race — men 
of  Chaldea,  of  Egypt,  of  India,  of  China,  and  of  Greece — have 
tried  to  draw  a  perfect  character,  have  expended  all  their 
might  to  paint  a  god-like  man.  And  with  what  result  ?  Either 
he  is  invested  with  the  passions  and  the  brutalities  of  fallcr 

21 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

men,  or  he  is  a  pitiless  and  impassive  spectator  of  the  world's 
sorrows  and  woes.  In  either  case,  the  character  is  one  which 
may  command  the  fear  but  not  the  love  and  confidence  of 
men. 

Again,  we  ask,  How  did  the  evangelists  solve  this  mighty 
problem  of  humanity  with  such  perfect  originality  and  pre- 
cision? Only  two  answers  are  rationally  possible:  i.  They 
had  before  them  the  personal  and  historical  Christ.  Men 
could  no  more  invent  the  God-man  of  the  Gospels  than  they 
could  create  a  world. ,  The  almost  irreverent  words  of  Theo- 
dore Parker  are  grounded  in  absolute  truth :  "It  would  have 
taken  a  Jesus  to  forge  a  Jesus."  2.  They  wrote  by  inspiration 
of  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  cannot  be  otherwise.  It  is  not  enough 
to  say  that  the  Divine  Model  was  before  them :  they  must 
have  had  something  more,  else  they  never  could  have  suc- 
ceeded. 

Let  it  be  assumed  that  these  four  men,  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke  and  John,  were  personally  attendant  on  the  ministry  of 
Jesus — that  they  saw  Him,  heard  Him,  accompanied  with  Him 
for  three  years.  Yet  on  their  own  showing  they  did  not  un- 
derstand Him.  They  testify  that  the  disciples,  the  Apostles 
among  the  number,  got  but  the  slenderect  conceptions  of  His 
person  and  His  mission  from  His  very  explicit  teachings. 
They  tell  us  of  a  wonderful  incapacity  and  weakness  in  all 
their  apprehensions  of  Him.  The  Sun  of  righteousness  was 
shining  on  them  and  around  them,  and  they  could  see  only 
the  less !  He  told  them  repeatedly  of  His  approaching  death, 
and  of  His  resurrection,  but  they  did  not  understand  Him; 
they  even  questioned  among  themselves  what  the  rising  from 
th«  dead  should  mean  (Mark  ixrio) — poor  men!  And  yet 
these  men,  once  so  blind  and  ignorant,  write  four  little  pieces 
about  the  person  and  the  work  of  the  Lord  Jesus  which  the . 

22 


TJic  Moral  Glory  of  the  Lord  Jesus 

study  and  the  research  of  Christendom  for  eighteen  hundred 
years  have  not  exhausted,  and  which  the  keenest  and  most 
hostile  criticism  has  utterly  failed  to  discredit. 

But  this  is  not  all.  Others  have  tried  their  hand  at  com- 
posing the  Life  and  Deeds  of  Jesus.  Compare  some  of  these 
with  our  Four  Gospels. 

SPURIOUS   GOSPELS 

The  Gospel  narrative  observes  an  almost  unbroken  silence 
as  to  the  long  abode  of  Jesus  at  Nazareth.  Of  the  void  thus 
left  the  church  became  early  impatient.  During  the  first  four 
centuries  many  attempts  were  made  to  fill  it  up.  Some  of 
these  apocryphal  gospels  are  still  extant,  notably  that  which 
deals  with  the  infancy  and  youth  of  the  Redeemer;  and  it  is 
instructive  to  notice  how  those  succeeded  who  tried  to  lift 
the  veil  which  covers  the  earlier  years  of  Christ.  Let  another 
state  the  contrast  between  the  New  Testament  records  and  the 
spurious  gospels:  "The  case  stands  thus:  our  Gospels  present 
us  with  a  glorious  picture  of  a  mighty  Saviour,  the  mythic  gos- 
pels with  that  of  a  contemptible  one.  In  our  Gospels  He  ex- 
hibits a  superhuman  wisdom;  in  the  mythic  ones  a  nearly 
equal  superhuman  absurdity.  In  our  Gospels  He  is  arrayed  in 
all  the  beauty  of  holiness ;  in  the  mythic  ones  this  aspect  of 
character  is  entirely  wanting.  In  our  Gospels  not  one  stain 
of  sinfulness  defiles  His  character ;  in  the  mythic  ones  the  Boy 
Jesus  is  both  pettish  and  malicious.  Our  Gospels  exhibit  to 
us  a  sublime  morality ;  not  one  ray  of  it  shines  in  those  of  the 
mythologists.  The  miracles  of  the  one  and  of  the  other  stand 
contrasted  on  every  point."     (Row.) 

These  spurious  gospels  were  written  by  men  who  lived 
not  long  after  the  apostolic  age;  by  Christians  who  wished 

23 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theology 

to  honor  the  Saviour  in  all  they  said  about  Him ;  by  men  who 
had  the  portraiture  of  Him  before  them  which  the  Gospels 
supply.  And  yet  these  men,  many  of  them  better  taught  than 
the  Apostles,  with  the  advantage  of  two  or  three  centuries  of 
Christian  thought  and  study,  could  not  produce  a  fancy  sketch 
of  the  Child  Jesus  without  violating  our  sense  of  propriety,  and 
shocking  our  moral  sense.  The  distance  between  the  Gos- 
pels of  the  New  Testament  and  the  pseudo-gospels  is  meas- 
ured by  the  distance  between  the  product  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
and  that  of  the  fallen  human  mind. 

UNINSPIRED   "lives   OF   CHRIST" 

Let  us  take  another  illustration.  The  nineteenth  century 
has  been  very  fruitful  in  the  production  of  what  are  commonly 
called  "Lives  of  Christ."  Contrast  with  the  Gospels  four 
such  "Lives,"  perhaps  the  completest  and  the  best,  taken  alto- 
gether, of  those  written  by  English-speaking  people — An- 
drews', Geikie's,  Hanna's  and  Edersheim's.  The  authors  of 
our  Gospels  had  no  models  on  which  to  frame  their  work. 
The  path  they  trod  had  never  before  been  pressed  by  human 
feet.  The  authors  of  the  "Lives"  have  not  only  these  incom- 
parable narratives  as  their  pattern  and  the  chief  source  of 
all  their  material,  but  numberless  other  such  "Lives"  sug- 
gestive as  to  form  and  construction,  and  the  culture  and  the 
research  of  eighteen  centuries  lying  behind  them.  But  would 
any  one  venture  for  a  moment  to  set  forth  these  "Lives"  as 
rivals  of  our  Gospels?  Much  information  and  helpfulness  are 
to  be  derived  from  the  labors  of  these  Christian  scholars,  and 
others  who  have  toiled  in  the  same  field ;  but  how  far  they  all 
fall  below  the  New  Testament  record  it  is  needless  to  show. 

24 


The  Moral  Glory  of  the  Lord  Jtrsus 

Indeed,  all  such  writings  are  largely  antiquated  and  scarcely 
read,  though  they  are  quite  young  in  years,  so  soon  does  man's 
work  decay  and  die. 

Let  the  contrast  be  noted  as  to  size  or  bulk.  Andrews* 
book  contains  615  pages;  Geikie's  over  1,200;  Hanna's  over 
2.100;  Edersheim's,  1,500  pages.  The  four  combined  have  nr) 
less  than  5,490  pages,  enough  in  these  busy  days  to  require 
months  of  reading  to  go  but  once  through  their  contents. 
Bagster  prints  the  Four  Gospels  in  82  pages ;  the  Oxford,  in 
104;  Amer.  Rev.,  120.  In  the  Bagster,  Matthew  has  but  2^; 
Mark,  13;  Luke,  25;  and  John,  21.  Less  than  one  hundred 
pages  of  the  Four  Gospels  against  more  than  five  thousand 
four  hundred  of  the  four  "Lives." 

Countless  volumes,  great  and  small,  in  the  form  of  com- 
mentary, exposition,  notes,  harmony  and  history  are  written 
on  these  brief  records.  How  happens  it  that  such  stores  of 
wisdom  and  knowledge  lie  garnered  in  these  short  pieces? 
Who  taught  the  evangelists  this  superhuman  power  of  ex- 
pansion and  contraction,  of  combination  and  separation,  of 
revelation  in  the  words  and  more  revelation  below  the  w'ords  ? 
Who  taught  them  so  to  describe  the  person  and  work  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  as  that  the  description  satisfies  the  most  ilHterate 
and  the  most  learned,  is  adapted  to  minds  of  the  most  limited 
capacity,  and  to  those  of  the  widest  grasp?  Whence  did  they 
derive  the  infinite  skill  they  display  in  grouping  together 
events,  discourses,  and  actions  in  such  fashion  that  vividly 
before  us  is  the  deathless  beauty  of  a  perfect  Life?  There  is 
but  one  answer  to  these  questions,  there  can  be  no  other.  The 
Spirit  of  the  living  God  filled  their  minds  with  His  unerring 
wisdom  and  controlled  their  human  speech.  To  that  creative 
Spirit  who  has  peopled  the  world  with  living  organisms  so 

2^ 


I'Jie  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

minute  that  only  the  microscope  can  reveal  their  presence, 
it  is  not  hard  to  give  us  in  so  brief  a  compass  the  sublime 
portrait  of  the  Son  of  Man.     To  men  it  is  impossible. 

INSPIRATION  EXTENDS  THROUGHOUT  THE  BIBLE 

Now  if  it  be  conceded  that  the  Four  Gospels  are  inspired, 
we  are  compelled  by  every  rule  of  right  reason  to  concede 
the  inspiration  of  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament.  For  all  the 
later  communications  contained  in  the  Acts,  the  Epistles,  and 
the  Revelation,  are  already  in  germ  form  in  the  Gospels,  just 
as  the  Pentateuch  holds  in  germ  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament. 
If  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author  of  the  Four  Gospels  He  is 
none  the  less  the  author  of  the  entire  New  Testament.  If  He 
creates  the  germ,  it  is  He  also  that  must  unfold  it  into  mature 
fruit.  If  He  makes  the  seed  He  must  likewise  give  the  in- 
crease. To  this  fundamental  truth  the  writers  of  the  later 
communications  bear  the  most  explicit  testimony.  Paul,  John, 
James,  Peter  and  Jude  severally  intimate  that  what  they  have 
to  impart  is  from  Christ  by  His  Spirit. 

Furthermore,  if  we  admit  the  inspiration  of  the  New 
Testament  we  must  also  admit  that  of  the  Old.  For,  if  any 
one  thing  has  been  established  by  the  devout  and  profound 
study  and  research  of  evangelical  scholarship  it  is  this,  that 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  hold  in  germ  the  revela- 
tion contained  in  the  New.  The  Latin  Father  spoke  as  pro- 
foundly as  truly  when  he  said,  'The  New  Testament  lies  hid 
in  the  Old,  and  the  Old  stands  revealed  in  the  New."  An- 
cient Judaism  had  one  supreme  voice  for  the  chosen  people, 
and  its  voice  was  prophetic.  Its  voice  was  the  significant  word, 
Went.  As  if  it  kept  reminding  Israel  that  the  IMosaic  Institu- 
tions were  only  temporary  and  typical,  that  something  infi- 

26 


The  Moral  Glory  of  the  Lord  Jesus 

nitely  better  and  holier  was  to  take  their  place;  and  so  it  :>aid, 
Wait.  Wait,  and  the  true  Priest  will  come,  the  I'riest  greater 
than  Aaron,  greater  than  Melchizedck — the  Priest  of  whom 
these  w^ere  but  thin  shadows,  dim  pictures.  Wait,  and  the  true 
Prophet,  like  unto  Moses,  greater  than  Moses,  will  appear. 
Wait,  and  the  real  sacrifice,  that  of  which  all  other  offerings 
were  but  feeble  images,  will  be  made  and  sin  be  put  away.  If 
any  man  deny  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament,  sooner  or 
later  he  will  deny  that  of  the  New.  For  the  two  are  insepara- 
bly bound  up  together.  If  the  one  fall,  so  will  the  other. 
Already  the  disastrous  consequences  of  such  a  course  of  pro- 
cedure are  apparent  in  Christendom.  For  years  the  conflict 
has  raged  about  the  trustworthiness,  the  integrity  and  the 
authority  of  the  Old  Testament.  Not  long  since  one  who  is 
identified  with  the  attacking  party  arrayed  against  that  Scrip- 
ture announced  that  the  victory  is  won,  and  nothing  now  re- 
mains save  to  determine  the  amount  of  the  indemnity.  It  is 
very  noteworthy  that  the  struggle  has  indeed  measurably  sub- 
»  sided  as  to  the  Old  Testament,  although  there  are  no  signs 
of  weakening  faith  in  it  on  the  part  of  God's  faithful  chil- 
dren, and  the  fight  now  turns  with  increasing  vigor  on  the 
New  Testament,  and  pre-eminently  about  the  Person  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Men  who  are  Christians  at  least  in  name, 
who  occupy  influential  seats  in  great  Universities  and  even 
Theological  Schools,  do  not  shrink  from  impeaching  the  New 
Testament  record  touching  the  Virgin  Birth  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  His  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  His  promise  of  one 
day  returning  to  this  earth  in  majesty  and  power.  One  can- 
not renounce  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  without 
relaxing  his  hold,  sooner  or  later,  on  the  New. 

Christ  is  the  center  of  all  Scripture,  as  He  is  the  center  of 
all  God's  purposes  and  counsels.    The  four  evangelists  take  up 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

the  life  and  the  moral  glory  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  they  place 
it  alongside  of  the  picture  of  the  Messiah  as  sketched  by  the 
prophets,  the  historical  by  the  side  of  the  prophetic,  and  they 
show  how  exactly  the  two  match.  So  long  as  the  Four  Gos- 
pels remain  unmutilated  and  trusted  by  the  people  of  God, 
so  long  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible's  supreme  authority  as- 
sured. 

God  spoke  to  the  fathers  in  the  prophets :  He  now  speaks 
to  us  in  His  Son  whom  He  hath  made  Heir  of  all  things.  In 
either  case,  whether  by  the  prophets  or  by  the  Son,  the  Speaker 
is  God. 


2% 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  HISTORY  OF   THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM 

BY   CANON    DYSON    HAGUE,    M.    A., 
RECTOR   OF   THE    MEMORIAL   CHURCH,    LONDON,    ONTARIO 
LECTURER    IN     LITURGICS    AND     ECCLESIOLOGY,     WYCLIFFE     COL- 
LEGE,    TORONTO,      CANADA 
EXAMINING  CHAPLAIN   TO  THE  BISHOP  OF  HURON. 

IVJtat  is  the  meaning  of  the  Higher  Criticism f  Why  is 
it  called  highcrf    Higher  than  what? 

At  the  outset  it  must  be  explained  that  the  word  "Higher" 
is  an  academic  term,  used  in  this  connection  in  a  purely  special 
or  technical  sense.  It  is  not  used  in  the  popular  sense  of  the 
word  at  all,  and  may  convey  a  wrong  impression  to  the  ordi- 
nary man.  Nor  is  it  meant  to  convey  the  idea  of  superiority. 
It  is  simply  a  term  of  contrast.  It  is  used  in  contrast  to  the 
phrase,  ''Lower  Criticism." 

One  of  the  most  important  branches  of  theology  is  called 
the  science  of  Biblical  criticism,  which  has  for  its  object  the 
study  of  the  histor}'  and  contents,  and  origins  and  purposes, 
of  the  various  books  of  the  Bible.  In  the  early  stages  of  the 
science  Biblical  criticism  was  devoted  to  two  great  branches, 
the  Lower,  and  the  Higher.  The  Lower  Criticism  was  em- 
ployed to  designate  the  study  of  the  text  of  the  Scripture,  and 
included  the  investigation  of  the  manuscripts,  and  the  dif- 
ferent readings  in  the  various  versions  and  codices  and  man- 
uscripts in  order  that  we  may  be  sure  we  have  the  orig^inal 

20 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

words  as  they  were  written  by  the  Divinely  inspired  writers. 
(See  Briggs,  Hex.,  page  i.)  The  term  generally  used  now-a- 
days  is  Textual  Criticism.  If  the  phrase  were  used  in  the 
twentieth  century  sense,  Beza,  Erasmus,  Bengel,  Griesbach, 
Lachmann,  Tregelles,  Tischendorff,  Scrivener,  Westcott,  and 
Hort  would  be  called  Lower  Critics.  But  the  term  is  not  now- 
a-days  used  as  a  rule.  The  Higher  Criticism,  on  the  con- 
trary, was  employed  to  designate  the  study  of  the  historic 
origins,  the  dates,  and  authorship  of  the  various  books  of  the 
Bible,  and  that  great  branch  of  study  which  in  the  technical 
language  of  modern  theology  is  known  as  Introduction.  It 
is  a  very  valuable  branch  of  Biblical  science,  and  is  of  the 
highest  importance  as  an  auxiliary  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  Word  of  God.  By  its  researches  floods  of  light  may  be 
thrown  on  the  Scriptures. 

The  term  Higher  Criticism,  then,  means  nothing  more 
than  the  study  of  the  literary  structure  of  the  various  books 
of  the  Bible,  and  more  especially  of  the  Old  Testament.  Now 
this  in  itself  is  most  laudable.  It  is  indispensable.  It  is  just 
such  work  as  every  minister  or  Sunday  Scnool  teacher  does 
when  he  takes  up  his  Peloubet's  Notes,  or  his  Stalker's  St. 
Paul,  or  Geikie's  Hours  with  the  Bible,  to  find  out  all  he  can 
with  regard  to  the  portion  of  the  Bible  he  is  studying;  the 
author,  the  date,  the  circumstances,  and  purpose  of  its  writing. 

WHY   IS   HIGHER    CRITICISM    IDENTIFIED    WITH    UNBELIEF? 

How  is  it,  then,  that  the  Higher  Criticism  has  become 
identified  in  the  popular  mind  with  attacks  u^pon  the  Bible 
and  the  supernatural  character  of  the  Holy  Scripturesf 

The  reason  is  this.  No  study  perhaps  requires  so  devout 
a  spirit  and  so  exalted  a  faith  in  the  supernatural  as  the  pur- 

30 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

suit  of  the  IIii;hcr  Criticism.  It  demands  at  once  the  ability 
of  the  scholar,  and  the  simplicity  of  the  believini:;-  child  of  Ck)d. 
For  without  faith  no  one  can  explain  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  without  scholarship  no  one  can  investigate  historic  orij^ins. 
There  is  a  Higher  Criticism  that  is  at  once  reverent  in 
tone  and  scholarly  in  work.  Hengstenberg-,  the  German,  and 
Home,  the  Englishman,  may  be  taken  as  examples.  Perhaps 
the  greatest  work  in  English  on  the  Higher  Criticism  is 
Home's  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and  Knowledge  of 
the  Holy  Scripture.  It  is  a  work  that  is  simply  massive  in 
its  scholarship,  and  invaluable  in  its  vast  reach  of  information 
for  the  study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  But  Home's  Introduc- 
tion is  too  large  a  work.  It  is  too  cumbrous  for  use  in  this 
hurrying  age.  (Carter's  edition  in  two  volumes  contains  1,149 
pages,  and  in  ordinary  book  form  would  contain  over  4,000 
pages,  i.  e.,  about  ten  volumes  of  400  pages  each.)  Latterly, 
however,  it  has  been  edited  by  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  who 
practically  adopted  the  views  of  Hupfield  and  Halle  and  inter- 
polated not  a  few  of  the  modern  German  theories.  But 
Home's  work  from  first  to  last  is  the  work  of  a  Christian 
believer;  constructive,  not  destructive;  fortifying  faith  in  the 
Bible,  not  rationalistic.  But  the  work  of  the  Higher  Critic 
has  not  always  been  pursued  in  a  reverent  spirit  nor  in  the 
spirit  of  scientific  and  Christian  scholarship. 

SUBJECTIVE  CONCLUSIONS 

In  the  first  place,  the  critics  who  were  the  leaders,  the 
men  who  have  given  name  and  force  to  the  whole  movement, 
have  been  men  who  have  based  their  theories  largely  upon 
tlieir  own  subjective  conclusions.  They  have  based  their  con- 
clusions largely  upon  the  very  dubious  basis  of  the  author's 

31 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

style  and  supposed  literary  qualifications.  Everybody  knows 
that  style  is  a  very  unsafe  basis  for  the  determination  of  a 
literary  product.  The  greater  the  writer  the  more  versatile 
his  power  of  expression;  and  anybody  can  understand  that 
the  Bible  is  the  last  book  in  the  world  to  be  studied  as  a  mere 
classic  by  mere  human  scholarship  without  any  regard  to  the 
spirit  of  sympathy  and  reverence  on  the  part  of  the  student. 
The  Bible,  as  has  been  said,  has  no  revelation  to  make  to  un- 
Biblical  minds.  It  does  not  even  follow  that  because  a  man 
is  a  philological  expert  he  is  able  to  understand  the  integrity 
or  credibility  of  a  passage  of  Holy  Scripture  any  more  than 
the  beauty  and  spirit  of  it. 

The  qualification  for  the  perception  of  Biblical  truth  is 
neither  philosophic  nor  philological  knowledge,  but  spiritual 
insight.  The  primary  qualification  of  the  musician  is  that  he 
be  musical ;  of  the  artist,  that  he  have  the  spirit  of  art.  So 
the  merely  technical  and  mechanical  and  scientific  mind  is 
disquahfied  for  the  recognition  of  the  spiritual  and  infinite. 
Any  thoughtful  man  must  honestly  admit  that  the  Bible  is  to 
be  treated  as  unique  in  literature,  and,  therefore,  that  the 
ordinary  rules  of  critical  interpretation  must  fail  to  interpret 
it  aright. 

GERMAN   FANCIES 

In  the  second  place,  some  of  the  most  powerful  exponents 
of  the  modern  Higher  Critical  theories  have  been  Germans, 
and  it  is  notorious  to  what  length  the  German  fancy  can  go  in 
the  direction  of  the  subjective  and  of  the  conjectural.  For 
hypothesis-weaving  and  speculation,  the  German  theological 
professor  is  unsurpassed.  One  of  the  foremost  thinkers  used 
to  lay  it  down  as  a  fundamental  truth  in  philosophical  and 

32 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

scientrlic  enquiries  that  no  regard  whatever  should  be  paid 
to  the  conjectures  or  hypotheses  of  thinkers,  and  quoted  as  an 
axiom  the  great  Newton  himself  and  his  famous  words,  "Non 
fingo  hypotheses"  :  I  do  not  frame  hypotheses.  It  is  notorious 
that  some  of  the  most  learned  German  thinkers  are  men  who 
lack  in  a  singular  degree  the  faculty  of  common  sense  and 
knowledge  of  human  nature.  Like  many  physical  scientists, 
they  are  so  preoccupied  with  a  theory  that  their  conclusions 
seem  to  the  average  mind  curiously  warped.  In  fact,  a  learned 
man  in  a  letter  to  Descartes  once  made  an  observation  which, 
with  slight  verbal  alteration,  might  be  applied  to  some  of  the 
German  critics:  "When  men  sitting  in  their  closet  and,  con- 
sulting only  their  books,  attempt  disquisitions  into  the  Bible, 
they  may  indeed  tell  how  they  would  have  made  the.  Book 
if  God  had  given  them  that  commission.  That  is,  they  may 
describe  chimeras  which  correspond  to  the  fatuity  of  their  own 
minds,  but  without  an  understanding  truly  Divine  they  can 
never  form  such  an  idea  to  themselves  as  the  Deity  had  in 
creating  it."  "If,"  says  Matthew  Arnold,  "you  shut  a  num- 
ber of  men  up  to  make  study  and  learning  the  business  of 
their  lives,  how  many  of  them,  from  want  of  some  discipline 
or  other,  seem  to  lose  all  balance  of  judgment,  all  common 
sense." 

The  learned  professor  of  Assyriology  at  Oxford  said  that 
the  investigation  cf  the  literary  source  of  history  has  been  a 
peculiarly  German  pastime.  It  deals  with  the  writers  and 
readers  of  the  ancient  Orient  as  if  they  were  modern  German 
professors,  and  the  attempt  to  transform  the  ancient  Israelites 
into  somewhat  inferior  German  compilers,  proves  a  strange 
want  of  familiarity  with  Oriental  modes  of  thought.  (Sayce, 
"Early  History  of  the  Hebre'«v?,"  pages  108-112.) 


The,  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

ANTI-SUPERNATURALISTS 

In  the  third  place,  the  dominant  men  of  the  movement 
were  men  with  a  strong  bias  against  the  supernatural.  This 
is  not  an  ex-parte  statement  at  all.  It  is  simply  a  matter  of 
fact,  as  we  shall  presently  show.  Some  of  the  men  who  have 
been  most  distinguished  as  the  leaders  of  the  Higher  Critical 
movement  in  Germany  and  Holland  have  been  men  who  have 
no  faith  in  the  God  of  the  Bible,  and  no  faith  in  either  the 
necessity  or  the  possibility  of  a  personal  supernatural  revela- 
tion. The  men  who  have  been  the  voices  of  the  movement, 
of  whom  the  great  majority,  less  widely  known  and  less  influ- 
ential, have  been  mere  echoes ;  the  men  who  manufactured  the 
articles  the  others  distributed,  have  been  notoriously  opposed 
to  the  miraculous. 

We  must  not  be  misunderstood.  We  distinctly  repudiate 
the  idea  that  all  the  Higher  Critics  were  or  are  anti-super- 
naturalists.  Not  so.  The  British-American  School  embraces 
within  its  ranks  many  earnest  believers.  What  we  do  say,  as 
we  will  presently  show,  is  that  the  dominant  minds  which 
have  led  and  swayed  the  movement,  who  made  the  theories 
that  the  others  circulated,  were  strongly  unbelieving. 

Then  the  higher  critical  movement  has  not  followed  its 
true  and  original  purposes  in  investigating  the  Scriptures  for 
the  purposes  of  confirming  faith  and  of  helping  believers  to 
understand  the  beauties,  and  appreciate  the  circumstances  of 
the  origin  of  the  various  books,  and  so  understand  more  com- 
pletely the  Bible? 

No.  It  has  not;  unquestionably  it  has  not.  It  has  been 
deflected  from  that,  largely  owing  to  ll:e  character  of  the  men 
whose  ability  and  forcefulness  have  given  predominance  to 
their  views.     It  has  fcecome  identified  with  a  system  of  criti- 

34 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

cism  which  is  based  on  hypotheses  and  suppositions  which 
have  for  their  object  the  repudiation  of  the  traditional  theory, 
and  has  investigated  the  origins  and  forms  and  styles  and 
contents,  apparently  not  to  confirm  the  authenticity  and  credi- 
bility and  reliability  of  the  Scriptures,  but  to  discredit  in  most 
cases  their  genuineness,  to  discover  discrepancies,  and  throw 
doubt  upon  their  authority. 

^  THE   ORIGIN    OF    THE    MOVEMENT 

Who,  then,  were  the  men  whose  views  have  moulded  the 
views  of  the  leading  teachers  and  zvritcrs  of  the  Higher  Crit- 
ical school  of  1 0-day f 

We  will  answer  this  as  briefly  as  possible. 

It  is  not  easy  to  say  who  is  the  first  so-called  Higher 
Critic,  or  when  the  movement  began.  But  it  is  not  modern  by 
any  means.  Broadly  speaking,  it  has  passed  through  three 
great  stages: 

1.  The  French-Dutch. 

2.  The  German. 

3.  The  British-American. 

In  its  origin  it  was  Franco-Dutch,  and  speculative,  if  not 
skeptical.  The  views  which  are  now  accepted  as  axiomatic 
by  the  Continental  and  British-American  schools  of  Higher 
Criticism  seem  to  have  been  first  hinted  at  by  Carlstadt  in 
1 52 1  in  his  work  on  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  and  by  Andreas 
Masiu^,  a  Belgian  scholar,  who  published  a  commentary  on 
Joshua  in  1574,  and  a  Roman  Catholic  priest,  called  Peyrere 
or  Pererius,  in  his  Systematic  Theology,  1660.    (LIV.  Cap.  i.) 

But  it  may  really  be  said  to  have  originated  with  Spinoza, 
the  rationalist  Dutch  philosopher.  In  his  Tractatus  Theologi- 
co-Politicus    (Cap.    vii-viii),    1670,   Sginoza  came  out  boldly 

35 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

and  impugned  the  traditional  date  and  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  and  ascribed  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  to 
Ezra  or  to  some  other  late  compiler. 

Spinoza  was  really  the  fountain-head  of  the  movement, 
and  his  line  was  taken  in  England  by  the  British  philosopher 
Hobbes.  He  went  deeper  than  Spinoza,  as  an  outspoken  an- 
tagonist of  the  necessity  and  possibility  of  a  personal  revela- 
tion, and  also  denied  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
A  few  years  later  a  French  priest,  called  Richard  Simon  of 
Dieppe,  pointed  out  the  supposed  varieties  of  style  as  indica- 
tions of  various  authors  in  his  Historical  Criticism  of  the 
Old  Testament,  "an  epoch-making  work."  Then  another 
Dutchman,  named  Clericus  (or  Le  Clerk), In  1685,  advocated 
still  more  radical  views,  suggesting  an  Exilian  and  priestly 
authorship  for  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  the  Pentateuch  was 
composed  by  the  priest  sent  from  Babylon  {2  Kings,  17), 
about  678,  B.  C,  and  also  a  kind  of  later  editor  or  redactor 
theory.  Clericus  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  critic  who  set 
forth  the  theory  that  Christ  and  his  Apostles  did  not  come 
into  the  world  to  teach  the  Jews  criticism,  and  that  it  is  only 
to  be  expected  that  their  language  would  be  in  accordance 
with  the  views  of  the  day. 

In  1753  a  Frenchman  named  Astruc,  a  medical  man,  and 
reputedly  a  free-thinker  of  profligate  life,  propounded  for  the 
first  time  the  Jehovistic  and  Elohistic  divisive  hypothesis,  and 
opened  a  new  era.  (Briggs'  Higher  Criticisn^  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, page  46.)  Astruc  said  that  the  use  of  the  two  names, 
Jehovah  and  Elohim,  shewed  the  book  was  composed  of 
different  documents.  (The  idea  of  the  Holy  Ghost  employing 
two  w^ords,  or  one  here  and  another  there,,  or  both  together 
as  He  wills,  never  seems  to  enter  the  thought  of  the  Higher 
Critic!   )  His  work  was  called  "Conjectures  Regarding  the 

.^6 


The  History   of  the  High$r   Criticism 

Original  Memoirs  in  the  Book  of  Genesis/'  and  was  published 
in  Brussels. 

Astruc  may  be  called  the  father  of  the  documentary  the- 
ories. He  asserted  there  are  traces  of  no  less  than  ten  or 
twelve  different  memoirs  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  He  denied 
its  Divine  authority,  and  considered  the  book  to  be  disfigured 
by  useless  repetitions,  disorder,  and  contradiction.  (Hirsch- 
f elder,  page  66.)  For  fifty  years  Astruc's  theory  was  unno- 
ticed. The  rationalism  of  Germany  was  as  yet  undeveloped, 
so  that  the  body  was  not  yet  prepared  to  receive  the  germ,  or 
the  soil  the  weed. 

THE  GERMAN   CRITICS 

The  next  stage  was  largely  German.  Eichhorn  is  the 
greatest  name  in  this  period,  the  eminent  Oriental  professor  at 
Gottingen  who  published  his  work  on  the  Old  Testament  in- 
troduction in  1780.  He  put  into  different  shape  the  docu- 
mentary hypothesis  of  the  Frenchman,  and  did  his  work  so 
ably  that  his  views  were  generally  adopted  by  the  most  dis- 
tinguished scholars.  Eichhorn's  formative  influence  has  been 
incalculably  great.  Few  scholars  refused  to  do  honor  to  the 
new  sun.  It  is  through  him  that  the  name  Higher  Criticism 
has  become  identified  with  the  movement.  He  w^as  followed 
by  Vater  and  later  by  Hartmann  with  their  fragment  theory 
which  practically  undermined  the  Mosaic  authorship,  made 
the  Pentateuch  a  heap  of  fragments,  carelessly  joined  by  one 
editor,  and  paved  the  way  for  the  most  radical  of  all  divisive 
hypotheses. 

In  1806  De  Wette,  Professor  of  Philosophy  and  Theology 
at  Heidelberg,  published  a  work  which  ran  through  six  edi- 
tions in  four  decades.  His  contribution  to  the  introduction  of 
the  Old  Testament  instilled  the  same  general  principles  as 

37 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

Eichhorn,  and  in  the  supplemental  hypotheses  assumed  that 
Deuteronomy  was  composed  in  the  age  of  Josiah  (2  Kings 
22:8).  Not  long  after,  Vatke  and  Leopold  George  (both 
Hegelians)  unreservedly  declared  the  post-Mosaic  and  post- 
prophetic  origin  of  the  first  four  books  of  the  Bible.  Then 
came  Bleek,  who  advocated  the  idea  of  the  Grundschift  or 
original  document  and  the  redactor  theory;  and  then  Ewald, 
the  father  of  the  Crystallization  theory;  and  then  Hupfield 
(1853),  who  held  that  the  original  document  was  an  inde- 
pendent compilation;  and  Graf,  who  wrote  a  book  on  the 
historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  in  1866  and  advocated 
the  theory  that  the  Jehovistic  and  Elohistic  documents  were 
written  hundreds  of  years  after  Moses'  time.  Graf  was  a 
pupil  of  Reuss,  the  redactor  of  the  Ezra  hypothesis  of  Spinoza. 

Then  came  a  most  influential  writer,  Professor  Kuenen  of 
Leyden  in  Holland,  whose  work  on  the  Hexateuch  was  edited 
by  Colenso  in  1865,  and  his  "Religion  of  Israel  and  Prophecy 
in  Israel,"  published  in  England  in  1874- 1877.  Kuenen  was 
one  of  the  most  advanced  exponents  of  the  rationalistic  school. 
Last,  but  not  least,  of  the  continental  Higher  Critics  is  Julius 
Wellhausen,  who  at  one  time  was  a  theological  professor  in 
Germany,  who  published  in  1878  the  first  volume  of  his  his- 
tory of  Israel,  and  won  by  his  scholarship  the  attention  if  not 
the  allegiance  of  a  number  of  leading  theologians.  (See 
Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  Green,  pages  59-88.) 

It  will  be  observed  that  nearly  all  these  authors  were 
Germans,  and  most  of  them  professors  of  philosophy  or  the- 
ology. 

THE  BRITISH-AMERICAN    CRITICS 

The  third  stage  of  the  movement  is  the  British-American. 
The   best   known   name   is   that   of    Dr.    Samuel    Davidson, 

2>^ 


The  History  of  the  Higher   Crilicisui 

whose  "Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,"  published  in  1862, 
was  largely  based  on  the  fallacies  of  the  German  rationalists. 
The  supplementary  hypothesis  passed  over  into  England 
through  him  and  with  strange  incongruity,  he  borrowed  fre- 
quently from  Baur.  Dr.  Robertson  Smith,  the  Scotchman, 
recast  the  German  theories  in  an  English  form  in  his  works  on 
the  Pentateuch,  the  Prophets  of  Israel,  and  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  Jewish  Church,  first  published  in  1881,  and  fol- 
lowed the  German  school,  according  to  Briggs,  with  great 
boldness  and  thoroughness.  A  man  of  deep  piety  and  high 
spirituality,  he  combined  with  a  sincere  regard  for  the  Word 
of  God  a  critical  radicalism  that  was  strangely  inconsistent,  as 
did  also  his  namesake,  George  Adam  Smith,  the  most  influ- 
ential of  the  present-day  leaders,  a  man  of  great  insight  and 
scriptural  acumen,  who  in  his  works  on  Isaiah,  and  the  twelve 
prophets,  adopted  seme  of  the  most  radical  and  least  demon- 
strable of  the  German  theories,  and  in  his  later  work,  ''Mod- 
ern Criticism  and  the  Teaching  of  the  Old  Testament,"  has 
gone  still  farther  in  the  rationalistic  direction. 

Another  well-known  Higher  Critic  is  Dr.  S.  R.  Driver,  the 
Regius  professor  of  Hebrew  at  Oxford,  who,  in  his  "Intro- 
duction to  the  Literr.ture  of  the  Old  Testament,"  published  ten 
years  later,  and  his  work  on  the  Book  of  Genesis,  has  elabo- 
rated with  remarkable  skill  and  great  detail  of  analysis  the 
theories  and  viev/s  of  the  continental  school.  Driver's  work 
is  able,  very  able,  1  ut  it  lacks  originality  and  English  inde- 
pendence. The  hari  is  the  hand  of  Driver,  but  the  voice  is 
the  voice  of  Kuenen  or  Wellhausen. 

The  third  well-'<nown  name  is  that  of  Dr.  C.  A.  Briggs, 
for  some  time  Processor  of  Biblical  Theology  in  the  Union 
Theological  Seminar  of  New  York.  An  equally  earnest  ad- 
vocate of  the  GermLn  theories,  he  published  in  1883  his  "Bib- 

39 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

lical  Study";  in  1886,  his  ''Messianic  Prophecy,"  and  a  lirtle 
later  his  "Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch."  Briggs 
studied  the  Pentateuch,  as  he  confesses,  under  the  guidance 
chiefly  of  Ewald.     (Hexateuch,  page  63.) 

Of  course,  this  hst  is  a  very  partial  one,  but  it  gives  most 
of  the  names  that  have  become  famous-  in  connection  with 
the  movement,  and  the  reader  who  desires  more  will  find  a 
complete  summary  of  the  literature  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
in  Professor  Bissell's  work  on  the  Pentateuch  (Scribner's, 
1892).  Briggs,  in  his  "Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch" 
(Scribner's,  1897),  gives  an  historical  summary  also. 

We  must  now  investigate  another  question,  and  that  is 
the  religious  views  of  the  men  most  influential  in  this  move- 
ment. In  making  the  statement  that  we  are  about  to  make, 
we  desire  to  deprecate  entirely  the  idea  of  there  being  any- 
thing uncharitable,  unfair,  or  unkind  in  stating  what  is  simply 
a  matter  of  fact. 

^  THE  VIEWS  OF  THE  CONTINENTAL  CRITICS 

Regarding  the  views  of  the  Continental  Critics,  three 
things  can  be  confidently  asserted  of  nearly  all,  if  not  all,  of 
the  real  leaders. 

1.  They  were  men  who  denied  the  validity  of  miracle, 
and  the  validity  of  any  miraculous  narrative.  What  Chris- 
tians consider  to  be  miraculous  they  considered  legendary  or 
mythical ;  ''legendary  exaggeration  of  events  that  are  entirely 
explicable  from  natural  causes." 

2.  They  were  men  who  denied  the  reality  of  prophecy 
and  the  validity  of  any  prophetical  statement.  What  Chris- 
tians have  been  accustomed  to  consider  prophetical,  they  called 
dexterous  conjectures,  coincidences,  fiction,  or  imposture. 

40 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

3.  They  were  men  who  denied  the  reahty  of  revelation, 
in  the  sense  in  which  it  has  ever  been  h.eld  by  the  universal 
Christian  Church.  They  were  avowed  unbelievers  of  the 
supernatural.  Their  theories  were  excogitated  on  pure 
grounds  of  human  reasoning.  Their  hypotheses  were  con- 
structed on  the  assumption  of  the  falsity  of  Scripture.  As  to 
tl:e  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  as  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  from 
Genesis  to  Revelation  being  the  Word  of  God,  they  had  no 
such  belief.  We  may  take  them  one  by  one.  Spinoza  repu- 
diated absolutely  a  supernatural  revelation.  And  Spinoza 
was  one  of  their  greatest.  Eichhorn  discarded  the  miraculous, 
and  considered  that  the  so-called  supernatural  element  was  an 
Oriental  exaggeration;  and  Eichhorn  has  been  called  the 
father  of  Higher  Criticism,  and  was  the  first  man  to  use  the 
term.  De  Wette's  views  as  to  inspiration  were  entirely  in- 
fidel. Vatke  and  Leopold  George  were  Hegelian  rationalists, 
and  regarded  the  first  four  books  of  the  Old  Testament  as 
entirely  mythical.  Kuenen,  says  Professor  Sanday,  wrote 
in  the  interests  of  an  almost  avowed  Naturalism.  That  is,  he 
was  a  free-thinker,  an  agnostic;  a  man  who  did  not  believe 
in  the  Revelation  of  the  one  true  and  living  God.  (Grampton 
Lectures,  1893,  page  117.)  He  wrote  from  an  avowedly 
naturalistic  standpoint,  says  Driver  (page  205).  According 
to  Wellhausen,  the  religion  of  Israel  was  a  naturalistic  evo- 
lution from  heathendom,  an  emanation  from  an  imperfectly 
monotheistic  kind  of  semi-pagan  idolatry.  It  was  simply  a 
human  religion. 

THE    LEADERS    WERE   RATIONALISTS 

In  one  word,  the  formative  forces  of  the  Higher  Critical 
movement  were  rationalistic  forces,  and  the  men  who  were  its 

41 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  Nezv  Theology 

chief  authors  and  expositors,  who  "on  account  of  purely  philo- 
logical criticism  have  acquired  an  appalling  authority,"  were 
men  who  had  discarded  belief  in  God  and  Jesus  Christ  Whom 
He  had  sent.  The  Bible,  in  their  view,  was  a  mere  human 
product.  It  was  a  stage  in  the  literary  evolution  of  a  reUgious 
people.  If  it  was  not  the  resultant  of  a  fortuitous  concourse 
of  Oriental  myths  and  legendary  accretions,  and  its  Jahveh 
or  Jahweh,  the  excogitation  of  a  Sinaitic  clan,  it  certainly 
was  not  given  by  the  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  not  the  Word 
of  the  living  God.  "Holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  said  Peter.  "God,  who  at  sundry 
times  and  in  diverse  manners  spake  by  the  prophets,"  said 
Paul.  Not  so,  said  Kuenen;  the  prophets  were  not  moved  to 
speak  by  God.  Their  utterances  were  all  their  own.  (San- 
day,  page  117.) 

These  then  were  their  views  and  these  were  the  views  that 
have  so  dominated  modern  Christianity  and  permeated  modern 
ministerial  thought  in  the  two  great  languages  of  the  modern 
world.  We  cannot  say  that  they  were  men  whose  rationalism 
was  the  result  of  their  conclusions  in  the  study  of  the  Bible. 
Nor  can  we  say  their  conclusions  with  regard  to  the  Bible 
were  wholly  the  result  of  their  rationalism.  But  we  can  say, 
on  the  one  hand,  that  inasmuch  as  they  refused  to  recognize 
the  Bible  as  a  direct  revelation  from  God,  they  were  free  to 
form  hypotheses  ad  libitum.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  as  they 
denied  the  supernatural,  the  animus  that  animated  them  in 
the  construction  of  the  hypotheses  was  the  desire  to  construct 
a  theory  that  would  explain  away  the  supernatural.  JLJnbe- 
lief  was  the  antecedent,  not  the  consequent  of  their  criticism. 

Now  there  is  nothing  unkind  in  this.  There  is  nothing 
that  is  uncharitable,  or  unfair.  It  is  simply  a  statement  of  fact 
which  modern  authorities  most  freely  admit. 

42 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

THE    SCHOOL    OF    COMPROMISE 


When  we  come  to  the  English-writing  Higher  Critics,  we 
approach  a  much  more  difficult  subject.  The  British- American 
Higher  Critics  represent  a  school  of  compromise.  On  the 
one  hand  they  practically  accept  the  premises  of  the  Conti- 
nental school  with  regard  to  the  antiquity,  authorship,  authen- 
ticity, and  origins  of  the  Old  Testament  books.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  refuse  to  go  with  the  German  rationalists  in  alto- 
gether denying  their  inspiration.  They  still  claim  to  accept 
the  Scriptures  as  containing  a  Revelation  from  God.  But 
may  they  not  hold  their  own  peculiar  views  with  regard  to 
the  origin  and  date  and  literary  structure  of  the  Bible  with- 
out endangering  either  their  own  faith  or  the  faith  of  Chris- 
tians? This  is  the  very  heart  of  the  question,  and,  in  order 
that  the  reader  may  see  the  seriousness  of  the  adoption  of  the 
conclusions  of  the  critics,  as  brief  a  resume  as  possible  of 
the  matter  will  be  given. 

THE   POINT  IN    A   NUTSHELL 

According  to  the  faith  of  the  universal  church,  the  Penta- 
teuch, that  is,  the  first  five  books  of  the  Bible,  is  one  con- 
sistent, coherent,  authentic  and  genuine  composition,  inspired 
by  God,  and,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Jews,  the  state- 
ments of  the  books  themselves,  the  reiterated  corroborations  of 
the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  explicit  statement  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  (Luke  24:44,  John  5:46-47)  was  written  by 
Moses  (with  the  exception,  of  course,  of  Deut.  34,  possibly 
written  by  Joshua,  as  the  Talmud  states,  or  probably  by  Ezra) 
at  a  period  of  about  fourteen  centuries  before  the  advent  of 
Christ,  and  800  years  or  so  before  Jeremiah.    It  is,  moreover, 

43 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

a  portion  of  the  Bible  that  is  of  paramount  importance,  for  it 
is  the  basic  substratum  of  the  whole  revelation  of  God,  and 
of  paramount  value,  not  because  it  is  merely  the  literature  of 
an  ancient  nation,  but  because  it  is  the  introductory  section 
of  the  Word  of  God,  bearing  His  authority  and  given  by 
inspiration  through  His  servant  Moses.  That  is  the  faith  of 
the  Church. 

THE  critics'  theory 

But  according  to  the  Higher  Critics : 

1.  The  Pentateuch  consists  of  four  completely  diverse 
documents.  These  completely  different  documents  vi^ere  the  pri- 
mary sources  of  the  composition  which  they  call  the  Hexa- 
teuch :  (a)  The  Yahwist  or  Jahwist,  (b)  the  Elohist,  (c)  the 
Deuteronomist,  and  (d)  the  Priestly  Code,  the  Grundschift, 
the  work  of  the  first  Elohist  (Sayce  Hist.  Heb.,  103),  now 
generally  known  as  J.  E.  D.  P.,  and  for  convenience  desig- 
nated by  these  symbols. 

2.  These  different  works  were  composed  at  various  peri- 
ods of  time,  not  in  the  fifteenth  century,  B.  C,  but  in  the 
ninth,  seventh,  sixth  and  fifth  centuries;  J.  and  E.  being 
referred  approximately  to  about  800  to  700  B.  C. ;  D  to  about 
650  to  625  B.  C,  and  P.  to  about  525  to  425  B.  C.  According 
to  the  Graf  theory,  accepted  by  Kuenen,  the  Elohist  docu- 
ments were  post-exilion,  that  is,  they  were  written  only  five 
centuries  or  so  before  Christ.  Genesis  and  Exodus  as  well  as 
the  Priestly  Code,  that  is,  Leviticus  and  part  of  Exodus  and 
Numbers  were  also  post-exilic. 

3.  These  different  works,  moreover,  represent  different 
traditions  of  the  national  life  of  the  Hebrews,  and  are  at 
variance  in  most  important  particulars. 

4.  And,  further.     They  conjecture  that  these  four  sup- 

44 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism- 

positive  documents  were  not  compiled  and  written  by  Mo3e5, 
but  were  probably  constructed  somewhat  after  this  fashion : 
For  some  reason,  and  at  some  time,  and  in  some  way,  some 
one,  no  one  knows  who,  or  why.  or  when,  or  where,  wrote  J. 
Then  someone  else,  no  one  knows  who,  or  why,  or  when,  or 
where,  wrote  another  docum.ent,  which  is  now  called  E.  And 
then  at  a  later  time,  the  critics  only  know  who,  cr  why,  or 
when,  or  where,  an  anonymous  personage,  whom  v;e  may  call 
Redactor  I,  took  in  hand  the  reconstruction  of  these  docu- 
ments, introduced  new  material,  harmonized  the  real  and 
apparent  discrepancies,  and  divided  the  inconsistent  accounts 
of  one  event  into  two  separate  transactions.  Then  some  time 
after  this,  perhaps  one  hundred  years  or  m.ore,  no  one  knows 
who,  or  why,  or  when,  or  where,  some  anonymous  personage 
wrote  another  document,  which  tliey  style  D.  And  after  a 
while  another  anonymous  author,  no  one  knows  who,  or 
why,  or  when,  or  where,  whom  we  will  call  Redactor  II,  took 
this  in  hand,  com.pared  it  with  J.  E.,  revised  J.  E..  with  con- 
siderable freedom,  and  in  addition  introduced  quite  a  body 
of  new  miaterial.  Then  someone  else,  no  one  knov\-s  who,  or 
why,  or  when,  or  where,  probably,  however,  about  525,  or 
perhaps  425,  wrote  P. ;  and  then  another  anonymous  Hebrew, 
whom  we  may  call  Redactor  III,  undertook  to  incorporate 
this  with  the  triplicated  composite  J.  E.  D.,  with  what  they 
call  redactional  additions  and  insertions.  (Green,  page  88, 
cf.  Sayce.  Early  History  of  the  Hebrews,  pages  100-105.) 

It  may  be  well  to  state  at  this  point  that  this  is  not  an 
exaggerated  statement  of  the  Higher  Critical  position.  On  the 
contrary,  we  have  given  here  what  has  been  described  as  a 
position  "established  by  proofs,  valid  and  cumulative"  and 
"representing  the  most  sober  scholarship."  The  more  ad- 
vanced continental  Higher  Critics,  Green  says,  distinguish  the 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Nezu  Theology 

writers  of  the  primary  sources  according  to  the  supposed  ele- 
ments as  Ji  and  J2,  Ei  and  E2,  Pi,  P2  and  P3,  and  Di  and 
D2,  nine  different  originals  in  all.  The  different  Redactors, 
technically  described  by  the  symbol  R.,  are  Rj.,  who  com- 
bined J.  and  E. ;  Rd.,  who  added  D.  to  J.  E.,  and  Rh.,  who 
completed  the  Hexateuch  by  combining  P.  with  J.  E.  D.  (H. 
C.  of  the  Pentateuch,  page  88.) 

A  DISCREDITED   PENTATEUCH 

5.  These  four  suppositive  documents  are,  moreover,  al- 
leged to  be  internally  inconsistent  and  undoubtedly  incom- 
plete. How  far  they  are  incomplete  they  do  not  agree.  How 
much  is  missing  and  when,  where,  how  and  by  whom  it  was 
removed;  whether  it  was  some  thief  who  stole,  or  copyist 
who  tampered,  or  editor  who  falsified,  they  do  not  declare. 

6.  In  this  redactory  process  no  limit  apparently  is  as- 
signed by  the  critic  to  the  work  of  the  redactors.  With  an  utter 
irresponsibility  of  freedom  it  is  declared  that  they  inserted 
misleading  statements  with  the  purpose  of  reconciling  incom- 
patible traditions;  that  they  amalgamated  what  should  have 
been  distinguished,  and  sundered  that  which  should  have 
amalgamated.  In  one  word,  it  is  an  axiomatic  principle  of 
the  divisive  hypothesizers  that  the  redactors  "have  not  only 
misapprehended,  but  misrepresented  the  originals"  (Green, 
page  170).  They  were  animated  by  "egotistical  motives." 
They  confused  varying  accounts,  and  erroneously  ascribed 
them  to  different  occasions.  They  not  only  gave  false  and  col- 
ored impressions;  they  destroyed  valuable  elements  of  the 
suppositive  documents  and  tampered  with  the  dismantled  rem- 
nant. 

7.  And  worst  of  all.    The  Higher  Critics  are  unanimous 

46 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

in  the  conclusion  that  these  documents  contain  three  species  of 
material : 

(a)  The  probably  true. 

(b)  The  certainly  doubtful. 

(c)  The  positively  spurious. 

*The  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch  are  usually  trustworthy, 
though  partly  mythical  and  legendary.  The  miracles  recorded 
were  the  exaggerations  of  a  later  age."  (Davidson,  Introduc- 
tion, page  131.)  The  framework  of  the  first  eleven  ch-APteri 
of  Genesis,  says  George  Adam  Smith  in  his  ''Modern  Criti* 
cism  and  the  Preaching  of  the  Old  Testament,"  is  wcrcn  from 
the  raw  material  of  myth  and  legend.  He  deques  their 
historical  character,  and  says  that  he  can  find  no  proof  in 
archaeology  for  the  personal  existence  of  characters  of  the 
Patriarchs  themselves.  Later  on,  however,  in  a  fit  of  apolo- 
getic repentance,  he  makes  the  condescending  admission  that 
it  is  extremely  probable  that  the  stories  of  the  Patriarchs 
have  at  the  heart  of  them  historical  elements.  (Pages  90- 
106.) 

Such  is  the  view  of  the  Pentateuch  that  is  accepted  as 
conclusive  by  "the  sober  scholarship"  of  a  number  of  the  lead- 
ing theological  writers  and  professors  of  the  day.  It  is  to 
this  the  Higher  Criticism  reduces  what  the  Lord  Jesus  called 
the  writings  of  Moses. 

A  DISCREDITED  OLD  TESTAMENT 

As  to  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  may  be  briefly  said 
that  they  have  dealt  with  it  with  an  equally  confusing  hand. 
The  time-honored  traditions  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  set  at 
naught,  and  its  thesis  of  the  relation  of  inspiration  and  genu- 
ineness and  authenticity  derided.    As  to  the  Psalms,  the  harp 

47 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theology 

that  was  once  believed  to  be  the  harp  of  David  was  not 
handled  by  the  sweet  Psalmist  of  Israel,  but  generally  by  some 
anonymous  post-exilist ;  and  Psalms  that  are  ascribed  to  David 
by  the  omniscient  Lord  Himself  are  daringly  attributed  to  some 
anonymous  Maccabean.  Ecclesiastes,  written,  nobody  knows 
when,  where,  and  by  whom,  possesses  just  a  possible  grade 
of  inspiration,  though  one  of  the  critics  "of  cautious  and  well- 
balanced  judgment"  denies  that  it  contains  any  at  all.  "Of 
course,"  says  another,  "it  is  not  really  the  work  of  Solomon." 
(Driver,  Introduction,  page  470.)  The  Song  of  Songs  is  an 
idyl  of  human  love,  and  nothing  more.  There  is  no  inspira- 
tion in  it;  it  contributes  nothing  to  the  sum  of  revelation. 
(Sanday,  page  211.)  Esther,  too,  adds  nothing  to  the  sum  of 
revelation,  and  is  not  historical  (page  213).  Isaiah  was,  of 
course,  written  by  a  number  of  authors.  The  first  part, 
chapters  i  to  40,  by  Isaiah ;  the  second  by  a  Deutero-Isaiah 
and  a  number  of  anonymous  authors.  As  to  Daniel,  it  was 
a  purely  pseudonymous  work,  written  probably  in  the  second 
century  B.  C. 

With  regard  to  the  New  Testament:  The  English  writ- 
ing school  have  hitherto  confined  themselves  mainly  to  the 
Old  Testament,  but  if  Professor  Sanday,  who  passes  as  a 
most  conservative  and  moderate  representative  of  the  critical 
school,  can  be  taken  as  a  sample,  the  historical  books  are  "yet 
in  the  first  instance  strictly  histories,  put  together  by  ordi- 
nary historical  methods,  or,  in  so  far  as  the  methods  on 
which  they  are  composed,  are  not  ordinary,  due  rather  to  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case,  and  not  to  influences,  which 
need  be  specially  described  a3  supernatural"  (page  399).  The 
Second  Epistle  of  Peter  is  pseudonymous,  its  name  counter- 
feit, and,  therefore,  a  forgery,  just  as  large  parts  of  Isaiah, 
Zachariah  and  Jonah,  and   Proverbs  were  suppositious  and 


The  Hist  or  y  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

quasi-fraudulent  dcciiments.  This  is  a  straightforward  state- 
ment of  the  position  taken  by  what  is  called  the  moderate 
school  of  Higher  Criticism.  It  is  their  own  admitted  posi- 
tion, according  to  their  own  writings. 

The  difficulty,  therefore,  that  presents  itself  to  the  average 
man  of  today  is  this :  How  can  these  critics  still  claim  to 
believe  in  the  Bible  as  the  Christian  Church  has  ever  be- 
lieved it? 

A  DISCREDITED  BIBLE 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Christ  and  His  Apostles  ac- 
cepted the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  as  inspired  in  every 
portion  of  every  part ;  from  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  to 
the  last  chapter  of  ^.lalachi,  all  was  implicitly  believed  to  be 
the  very  Word  of  God  Himself.  And  ever  since  their  day  the 
view  of  the  Universal  Christian  Church  has  been  that  the 
Bible  is  the  Word  of  God;  as  the  twentieth  article  of  the 
Anglican  Church  terms  it,  it  is  God's  Word  written.  The 
Bible  as  a  whole  is  inspired.  "All  that  is  written  is  God-in- 
spired.''' That  is,  the  Bible  does  not  merely  contain  the  Word 
of  God;  it  is  the  V/ord  of  God.  It  contains  a  revelation. 
"All  is  not  revealed,  but  all  is  inspired."  This  is  the  con- 
servative and,  up  to  the  present  day,  the  almost  universal 
view  of  the  question.  There  are,  it  is  well  known,  many  the- 
ories of  inspiration.  But  whatever  view  or  theory  of  inspira- 
tion men  may  hold,  plenary,  verbal,  dynamical,  mechanical, 
superintendent,  or  governmental,  they  refer  either  to  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  men  who  wrote,  or  to  the  inspiration  of  what 
is  written.  In  one  word,  they  imply  throughout  the  work  of 
God  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  are  bound  up  v;ith  the  concomitant 
ideas  of  authority,  veracity,  reliability,  and  truth  divine.  (The 
two  strongest  wcn:s  on  the  subject  from  this  standpoint  arc 

49 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Nczv  Theology 

by  Gaussen  and  Lee.  Gaussen  on  the  Theopneustia  is  pub- 
lished in  an  American  edition  by  Hitchcock  &  Walden,  of 
Cincinnati;  and  Lee  on  the  Inspiration  of  Lloly  Scripture  is 
pubhshed  by  Rivingtons.  Bishop  Wordsworth,  on  the  ''In- 
spiration of  the  Bible,"  is  also  very  scholarly  and  strong. 
Rivingtons,   1875.) 

The  Bible  can  no  longer,  according  to  the  critics,  be  viewed 
in  this  light.  It  is  not  the  Word  in  the  old  sense  of  that  term. 
It  is  not  the  Word  of  God  in  the  sense  that  all  of  it  is  given 
by  the  inspiration  of  God.  It  simply  contains  the  Word  of 
God.  In  many  of  its  parts  it  is  just  as  uncertain  as  any 
other  human  book.  It  is  not  even  reliable  history.  Its  rec- 
ords of  what  it  does  narrate  as  ordinary  history  are  full  of 
falsifications  and  blunders.  The  origin  of  Deuteronomy,  e.  g., 
was  "a  consciously  refined  falsification."  (See  Moller,  page 
207.) 

THE    REAL    DIFFICULTY 

But  do  they  still  claim  to  believe  that  the  Bible  is  inspired  ? 
Yes.  That  is,  in  a  measure.  As  Dr.  Driver  says  in  his 
preface,  "Criticism  in  the  hands  of  Christian  scholars  does  not 
banish  or  destroy  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament;  it 
pre-supposes  it."  That  is  perfectly  true.  Criticism  in  the 
hands  of  Christian  scholars  is  safe.  But  the  preponderating 
scholarship  in  Old  Testament  criticism  has  admittedly  noi 
been  in  the  hands  of  men  who  could  be  described  as  Chris- 
tian scholars.  It  has  been  in  the  hands  of  men  who  disavow 
belief  in  God  and  Jesus  Christ  W^hom  He  sent.  Criticism  in 
the  hands  of  Home  and  Hengstenberg  does  not  banish  of 
destroy  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testrment.  But,  in  the 
hands  of  Spinoza,  and  Graf,  and  Wellhausen,  and  Kuenen, 
inspiration  is  neither  pre-supposed  nor  possible.     Dr.  Brigg^ 

5^ 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

and  Dr.  Smith  may  avow  earnest  avowals  of  belief  in  the 
Divine  character  of  the  Bible,  and  Dr.  Driver  may  assert  that 
critical  conclusions  do  not  touch  either  the  authority  or  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  from 
first  to  last,  they  treat  God's  Word  with  an  indifference  almost 
equal  to  that  of  the  Germans.  They  certainly  handle  the  Old 
Testament  as  if  it  were  ordinary  literature.  And  in  all  their 
theories  they  seem  like  plastic  wax  in  the  hands  of  the 
rationalistic  moulders.  But  they  still  claim  to  believe  in  Bib- 
lical inspiration. 

A    REVOLUTIONARY    THEORY 

Their  theory  of  inspiration  must  be,  then,  a  very  different 
one  from  that  held  by  the  average  Christian. 

In  the  Bampton  Lectures  for  1903,  Professor  Sanday  of 
Oxford,  as  the  exponent  of  the  later  and  more  conservative 
school  of  Higher  Criticism,  came  out  with  a  theory  which  he 
termed  the  inductive  theory.  It  is  not  easy  to  describe  what 
is  fully  meant  by  this,  but  it  appears  to  mean  the  presence  of 
what  they  call  *'a  divine  element"  in  certain  parts  of  the  Bible. 
What  that  really  is  he  does  not  accurately  declare.  The  lan- 
guage always  vapours  off  into  the  vague  and  indefinite,  when- 
ever he  speaks  of  it.  In  what  books  it  is  he  does  not  say.  *Tt 
is  present  in  different  books  and  parts  of  books  in  different 
degrees."  "In  some  the  Divine  element  is  at  the  maximum; 
in  others  at  the  minimum."  He  is  not  always  sure.  He  is  sure 
it  is  not  in  Esther,  in  Ecclesiastes,  in  Daniel.  If  it  is  in  the 
historical  books,  it  is  there  as  conveying  a  religious  lesson 
rather  than  as  a  guarantee  of  historic  veracity,  rather  as  inter- 
preting than  as  narrating.  At  the  same  time,  \i  the  histories 
as  far  as  textual  construction  was  concerned  we-c  "natural 

SI 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

processes  carried  out  naturally,"  it  is  difficult  to  see  where  the 
Divine  or  supernatural  element  comes  in.  It  is  an  inspiration 
which  seems  to  have  been  devised  as  a  hypothesis  of  compro- 
mise. In  fact,  it  is  a  tenuous,  equivocal,  and  indeterminate 
something,  the  amount  of  which  is  as  indefinite  as  its  quality. 
(Sanday,  pages  100-398;  cf.  Driver,  Preface,  ix.) 

But  its  most  serious  feature  is  this :  It  is  a  theory  of 
inspiration  that  completely  overturns  the  old-fashioned  ideas 
of  the  Bible  and  its  unquestioned  standard  of  authority  and 
truth.  For  whatever  this  so-called  Divine  element  is,  it  ap- 
pears to  be  quite  consistent  wnth  defective  argument,  incorrect 
interpretation,  if  not  v/hat  the  average  man  would  call  forgery 
or  falsification. 

It  is,  in  fact,  revolutionary.  To  accept  it  the  Christian  will 
have  to  completely  readjust  his  ideas  of  honor  and  honesty, 
of  falsehood  and  misrepresentation.  Men  used  to  think  that 
forgery  was  a  crime,  and  falsification  a  sin.  Pusey,  in  his 
great  work  on  Daniel,  said  that  "to  write  a  book  under  the 
name  of  another  and  to  give  it  out  to  be  his  is  in  any  case  a 
forgery,  dishonest  in  itself  and  destructive  of  all  trustworthi- 
ness." (Pusey,  Lectures  on  Daniel,  page  i.)  But  according 
to  the  Higher  Critical  position,  all  sorts  of  pseudonymous  ma- 
terial, and  not  a  little  of  it  believed  to  be  true  by  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  Himself,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Bible,  and  no  ante- 
cedent objection  ought  to  be  taken  to  it. 

Men  used  to  think  that  inaccuracy  would  affect  reliability 
and  that  proven  inconsistencies  would  imperil  credibility.  But 
now  it  appears  that  there  may  not  only  be  mistakes  and 
errors  on  the  part  of  copyists,  but  forgeries,  intentional  omis- 
sions, and  misinterpretations  on  the  part  of  authors,  and  yet, 
marvelous  to  say,  faith  is  not  to  be  destroyed,  but  to  be  placed 
on  a  firmer  foundation,     (Sanday,  page  122.)     They  have, 

5^ 


The  History  of  tJic  Higher  Criticism 

according  to  Briggs,  entlironccl  the  Bible  in  a  liighcr  position 
than  ever  before.  (Briggs,  'The  Bible,  Church  and  Reason," 
page  149.)  Sanday  admits  that  there  is  an  element  in  the 
Pentateuch  derived  from  Moses  himself.  An  element!  But 
he  adds,  ''However  much  we  may  believe  that  there  is  a  gen- 
uine Mosaic  foundation  in  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  difficult  to 
lay  the  finger  upon  it,  and  to  say  with  confidence,  here  Moses 
himself  is  speaking."  "The  strictly  Llosaic  elemicnt  in  the 
Pentateuch  must  be  indeterminate."  "We  ought  not,  per- 
haps, to  use  them  (the  visions  of  Ex.  3  and  33)  without 
reserve  for  IMoses  himself"  (pages  172-174-176).  The  ordi- 
nary Christian,  however,  wall  say :  Surely  if  we  deny  the 
Mosaic  authorship  and  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch  we  must 
undermine  its  credibility.  The  Pentateuch  claims  to  be 
Mosaic.  It  was  the  universal  tradition  of  the  Jews.  It  is  ex- 
pressly stated  in  nearly  all  the  subsequent  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  The  Lord  Jesus  said  so  most  explicitly.  (John 
546-47.) 

IF  NOT  MOSES^  WHO? 

For  this  thought  must  surely  follow  to  the  thoughtful 
man:  If  Moses  did  not  write  the  Books  of  Moses,  who  did? 

If  there  were  three  or  four,  or  six,  or  nine  authorized  orig- 
inal winters,  why  not  fourteen,  or  sixteen,  or  nineteen?  And 
then  another  and  more  serious  thought  must  follow  that.  Who 
w^ere  these  original  writers,  and  who  originated  them?  If 
there  were  manifest  evidences  of  alterations,  manipulations, 
inconsistencies  and  omissions  by  an  indeterminate  number 
of  unknown  and  unknowable  and  undateable  redactors,  then 
the  question  arises,  who  were  these  redactors,  and  how  far 
had  they  authority  to  redact,  and  who  gave  them  this  author- 
ity?   If  the  redactor  was  the  writer,  was  he  an  inspired  writer, 

5Z 


The  Higher  Criticisju   and   The  New  Theology 

and  if  he  was  inspired,  what  was  the  degree  of  his  inspira- 
tion; was  it  partial,  plenary,  inductive  or  indeterminate?  This 
is  a  question  of  questions :  What  is  the  guarantee  of  the  in- 
spiration of  the  redactor,  and  who  is  its  guarantor.  Moses 
we  know,  and  Samuel  we  know,  and  Daniel  we  know,  but 
ye  anonymous  and  pseudonymous,  who  are  ye?  The  Penta- 
teuch, with  Mosaic  authorship,  as  Scriptural,  divinely  ac- 
credited, is  upheld  by  Catholic  tradition  and  scholarship,  and 
appeals  to  reason.  But  a  mutilated  cento  or  scrap-book  of 
anonymous  compilations,  with  its  pre-  and  post-exilic  redac- 
tors and  redactions,  is  confusion  worse  confounded. 

At  least  that  is  the  way  it  appears  to  the  average  Qiris- 
tian.  He  may  not  be  an  expert  in  philosophy  or  theology,  but 
his  common  sense  must  surely  be  allowed  its  rights.  And 
that  is  the  way  it  appears,  too,  to  such  an  illustrious  scholar 
and  critic  aG  Dr.  Emil  Reich.     (Contemporary  Review,  April, 

1905,  page  5150 

It  is  not  possible  then  to  accept  the  Kuenen-Wellhausen 
theory  of  the  structure  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Sanday- 
Driver  theory  of  its  inspiration  without  undermining  faith  in 
the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God.  For  the  Bible  is  either  the 
Word  of  God,  or  it  is  not.  The  children  of  Israel  were  the 
children  of  the  Only  Living  and  True  God,  or  they  were  not. 
If  their  Jehovah  was  a  mere  tribal  deity,  and  their  religion  a 
human  evolution;  if  their  sacred  literature  was  natural  with 
mythical  and  pseudonymous  admixtures;  then  the  Bible  is 
dethroned  from  its  throne  as  the  exclusive,  authoritative,  Di- 
vinely inspired  Word  of  God.  It  simply  ranks  as  one  of  the 
sacred  books  of  the  ancients  with  similar  claims  of  inspiration 
and  revelation.  Its  inspiration  is  an  indeterminate  quantity, 
and  any  man  has  a  right  to  subject  it  to  the  judgment  of  his 
own  critical  insight,  and  to   receive  just  as  much  cf  it  as 

54 


The  History  of  the  Higlicr  Criticism 

inspired  as  he  or  some  otlicr  person  believes  to  be  inspired. 
When  the  contents  have  passed  through  the  sieve  of  his 
judgment  the  inspired  residuum  may  be  large,  or  the  inspired 
residuum  may  be  small.  If  he  is  a  conserv^.tive  critic  it  may 
be  fairly  large,  a  mr.ximim;  if  he  is  a  more  advanced  critic  it 
may  be  fairly  small,  a  minimum.  It  is  simply  the  ancient  lit- 
erature of  a  religious  people  containing  somewhere  the  Word 
of  God;  *'a  revelation  of  no  one  knows  what,  made  no  one 
knows  how,  and  lying  no  one  knows  where,  except  that  it  is 
to  be  somewhere  between  Genesis  and  Revelation,  but  probably 
to  the  exclusion  of  both."     (Pusey,  Daniel,  xxviii.) 

NO   FINAL  AUTHORITY. 

Another  serious  consequence  of  the  Higher  Critical  move- 
ment is  that  it  threatens  the  Christian  system  of  doctrine  and 
the  w'hole  fabric  of  systematic  theology.  For  up  to  the  pres- 
ent time  any  text  from  any  part  of  the  Bible  was  accepted  as 
a  proof-text  for  the  establishment  of  any  truth  of  Christian 
teaching,  and  a  statement  from  the  Bible  was  considered  an 
end  of  controversy.  The  doctrinal  systems  of  the  Anglican, 
the  Presbyterian,  the  ]\Iethodist  and  other  Churches  are  all 
based  upon  the  view  that  the  Bible  contains  the  truth,  the 
whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  (See  39  Articles 
Church  of  England,  vi,  ix,  xx,  etc.)  They  accept  as  an  axiom 
that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  in  part,  and  as  a  whole, 
have  been  given  and  sealed  by  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son, 
and  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  All  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  from  the  greatest  to  the  least,  are  based  on  this.  All 
the  proofs  of  the  doctrines  are  based  also  on  this.  No  text 
was  questioned;  no  book  was  doubted;  all  Scripture  was  re- 
ceived by  the  great  builders  of  our  theological  systems  witT' 

55 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theology 

that  unassailable  belief  in  the  inspiration  of  its  texts,  which 
was  the  position  of   Qirist  and  His  apostles. 

But  now  the  Higher  Critics  think  they  have  changed  all 
that. 

They  claim  that  the  science  of  criticism  has  dispossessed 
the  science  of  systematic  theology.  Canon  Henson  tells  us 
that  the  day  has  gone  by  for  proof-texts  and  harmonies.  It  is 
not  enough  now  for  a  theologian  to  turn  to  a  book  in  the 
Bible,  and  bring  out  a  text  in  order  to  establish  a  doctrine. 
It  might  be  in  a  book,  or  in  a  portion  of  the  Book  that  the 
German  critics  have  proved  to  be  a  forgery,  or  an  anachronism. 
It  might  be  in  Deuteronomy,  or  in  Jonah,  or  in  Daniel,  and  in 
that  case,  of  course,  it  would  be  out  of  the  question  to  accept 
it.  The  Christian  system,  therefore,  will  have  to  be  re-adjusted 
if  not  revolutionized,  every  text  and  chapter  and  book  will 
have  to  be  inspected  and  analyzed  in  the  light  of  its  date,  and 
origin,  and  circumstances,  and  authorship,  and  so  on,  and  only 
after  it  has  passed  the  examining  board  of  the  modern  Franco- 
Dutch-German  criticism  will  it  be  allowed  to  stand  as  a  proof- 
text  for  the  establishment  of  any  Christian  doctrine. 

But  the  most  serious  consequence  cf  this  theory  of  the 
structure  and  inspiration  of  the  Old  Ter.tament  is  that  it  over- 
turns the  juridic  authority  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

w^HAT  OF  Christ's  authority? 

The  attitude  of  Christ  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
must  determine  ours.  He  is  God.  He  is  truth.  His  is  the 
final  voice.  He  is  the  Supreme  Judge.  There  is  no  appeal 
from  that  court.  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord  beheved  and  affirmed 
the   historic   veracity   of   the   whole   of   the    Old  Testament 

i6 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

writings  implicitly  (Luke  24:44).  And  the  Canon,  or  collec- 
tion of  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  was  precisely  the  same 
in  Christ's  time  as  it  is  today.  And  further.  Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord  believed  and  emphatically  affirmed  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  (Matt.  5:17-18;  Mark  12:26-36; 
Luke  16:31;  John  5:46-47).  That  is  true,  the  critics  say. 
But,  then,  neither  Christ  nor  His  Apostles  were  critical  schol- 
ars !  Perhaps  not  in  the  twentieth  century  sense  of  the  term. 
But,  as  a  German  scholar  said,  if  they  were  not  critici  doc- 
tores,  they  were  doctores  veritatis  who  did  not  come  into  the 
world  to  fortify  popular  errors  by  their  authority.  But  then 
they  say,  Christ's  knowledge  as  man  was  limited.  He  grew  in 
knowledge  (Luke  2:52).  Surely  that  implies  His  ignorance. 
And  if  His  ignorance,  why  not  His  ignorance  with  regard  to 
the  science  of  historical  criticism?  (Gore,  Lux  Mundi,  page 
360;  Briggs,  H.  C.  of  Hexateuch,  page  28.)  Or  even  if  He 
did  know  more  than  His  age.  He  probably  spoke  as  He  did 
in  accommodation  with  the  ideas  of  His  contemporaries! 
(Briggs,  page  29.) 

In  fact,  what  they  mean  is  practically  that  Jesus  did  know 
perfectly  well  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch,  but 
allowed  His  disciples  to  believe  that  Moses  did,  and  taught 
His  disciples  that  Moses  did,  simply  because  He  did  not  want 
to  upset  their  simple  faith  in  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament 
as  the  actual  and  authoritative  and  Divinely  revealed  Word 
of  God.  (See  Driver,  page  12.)  Or  else,  that  Jesus  imagined, 
like  any  other  Jew  of  His  day,  that  Moses  wrote  the  books 
that  bear  his  nam.e,  and  believed,  with  the  childlike  Jewish  be- 
lief of  His  day,  the  literal  inspiration,  Divine  authority  and  his- 
toric veracity  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  yet  was  completely 
mistaken,  ignorant  of  the  simplest  facts,  and  wholly  in  error. 

57 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  Nezv  Theology 

In  other  words,  He  could  not  tell  a  forgery  from  an  original, 
or  a  pious  fiction  from  a  genuine  document.  (The  analogy  of 
Jesus  speaking  of  the  sun  rising  as  an  instance  of  the  theory 
of  accommodation  is  a  very  different  thing.) 

This,  then,  is  their  position :  Christ  knew  the  views  He 
taught  were  false,  and  yet  taught  them  as  truth.  Or  else, 
Christ  didn't  know  they  were  false  and  believed  them  to  be 
true  when  they  were  not  true.  In  either  case  the  Blessed  One 
is  dethroned  as  True  God  and  True  Man.  If  He  did  not  know 
the  books  to  be  spurious  when  they  were  spurious  and  th^ 
fables  and  myths  to  be  mythical  and  fabulous ;  if  He  accepted 
legendary  tales  as  trustworthy  facts,  then  He  was  not  and  is 
not  omniscient.  He  was  not  only  intellectually  fallible,  He  was 
morally  fallible;  for  He  was  not  true  enough  "to  miss  the 
ring  of  truth"  in  Deuteronomy  and  Daniel. 

And  further.  If  Jesus  did  know  certain  of  the  books  to 
be  lacking  in  genuineness,  if  not  spurious  and  pseudonymous ; 
if  He  did  know  the  stories  of  the  Fall  and  Lot  and  Abraham 
and  Jonah  and  Daniel  to  be  allegorical  and  imaginary,  if  not 
unverifiable  and  mythical,  then  He  was  neither  trustworthy  nor 
good.  "If  it  were  not  so,  I  would  have  told  you."  We 
feel,  those  of  us  who  love  and  trust  Him,  that  if  these 
stories  were  not  true,  if  these  books  were  a  mass  of  historical 
unveracities,  if  Abraham  was  an  eponymous  hero,  if  Joseph 
was  an  astral  myth,  that  He  would  have  told  us  so.  It  is  a 
matter  that  concerned  His  honor  as  a  Teacher  as  well  as  His 
knowledge  as  our  God.  As  Canon  Liddon  has  conclusively 
pointed  out,  if  our  Lord  was  unreliable  in  these  historic  and 
documentary  matters  of  inferior  value,  how  can  He  be  fol- 
lowed as  the  teacher  of  doctrinal  truth  and  the  revealer  of 
God?  (John  3:12.)  (Liddon,  Divinity  of  Our  Lord,  pages 
475-480.) 

5S 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism 


AFTER  THE  KENOSIS 

Men  say  in  this  connection  that  part  of  the  humiliation  of 
Christ  was  His  being  touched  with  the  infirmities  of  our 
human  ignorance  and  fallibilities.  They  dwell  upon  the  so- 
called  doctrine  of  the  Kenosis,  or  the  emptying,  as  explaining 
satisfactorily  His  limitations.  But  Christ  spoke  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  after  His  resurrection.  He  affirmed 
after  His  glorious  resurrection  that  ''all  things  must  be  ful- 
filled v.hich  were  written  in  the  law  of  Closes,  and  in  the 
prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms  concerning  Me"  (Luke  24:44). 
This  was  not  a  statement  made  during  the  time  of  the  Kenosis, 
when  Girist  was  a  mere  boy,  or  a  youth,  or  a  m.ere  Jew  after 
the  flesh  (i  Cor.  13  :ii).  It  is  the  statement  of  Him  Who  has 
been  declared  the  Son  of  God  with  power.  It  is  the  Voice 
that  is  final  and  overwhelming.  The  limitations  of  the  Kenosis 
are  all  abandoned  now,  and  yet  the  Risen  Lord  not  only  does 
not  give  a  shadow  of  a  hint  that  any  statement  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  inaccurate  or  that  any  portion  thereof  needed 
revision  or  correction,  not  only  most  solemnly  declared  that 
those  books  which  we  receive  as  the  product  of  Moses  were 
indeed  the  books  of  Moses,  but  authorized  with  His  Divine 
imprimatur  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  from 
beginning  to   end. 

There  are,  however,  two  or  three  questions  that  must  be 
raised,  as  they  will  have  to  be  faced  by  every  student  of 
present  day  problems.  The  first  is  this :  Is  not  refusal  of 
the  higher  critical  conclusions  mere  opposition  to  light  and 
progress  and  the  position  of  ignorant  alarmists  and  obscur- 
antists ? 

59 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Ne'oJ  Theology 

NOT   OBSCURANTISTS 

It  is  very  necessary  to  have  our  minds  made  perfectly 
clear  on  this  point,  and  to  remove  not  a  little  dust  of  misun- 
derstanding. 

The  desire  to  receive  all  the  light  that  the  most  fearless 
search  for  truth  by  the  highest  scholarship  can  yield  is  the 
desire  of  every  true  believer  in  the  Bible.  No  really  healthy 
Christian  mind  can  advocate  obscurantism.  The  obscurant 
who  opposes  the  investigation  of  scholarship,  and  would  throt- 
tle the  investigators,  has  not  the  spirit  of  Christ.  In  heart 
and  attitude  he  is  a  Medisevalist.  To  use  Bushnell's  famous 
apologue,  he  w^ould  try  to  stop  the  dawning  of  the  day  by 
wringing  the  neck  of  the  crowing  cock.  No  one  wants  to  put 
the  Bible  in  a  glass  case.  But  it  is  the  duty  of  every  Christian 
who  belongs  to  the  noble  army  of  truth-lovers  to  test  all 
things  and  to  hold  fast  that  which  is  good.  He  also  has  rights 
even  though  he  is,  technically  speaking,  unlearned,  and  to 
accept  any  view  that  contradicts  his  spiritual  judgment  simply 
because  it  is  that  of  a  so-called  scholar,  is  to  abdicate  his 
franchise  as  a  Christian  and  his  birthright  as  a  man.  (See 
that  excellent  little  work  by  Professor  Kennedy,  *'01d  Testa- 
ment Criticism  and  the  Rights  of  the  Unlearned,"  F.  H.  Re- 
vell.)  And  in  his  right  of  private  judgment  he  is  aware  that 
while  the  privilege  of  investigation  is  conceded  to  all,  the  con- 
clusions of  an  avowedly  prejudiced  scholarship  must  be  sub- 
jected to  a  peculiarly  searching  analysis.  The  most  ordinary 
Bible  reader  is  learned  enough  to  know  that  the  investigation 
of  the  Book  that  claims  to  be  supernatural  by  those  who 
are  avowed  enemies  of  all  that  is  supernatural,  and  the  study 
of  subjects  that  can  be  understood  only  by  men  of  humble 
and  contrite  heart  by  men  who  are  admittedly  irreverent  in 

60 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

spirit,  must  certainly  be  received  with  caution.  (See  Parker's 
striking  work,  "None  Like  It,"  F.  H.  Revell,  and  his  last 
address.) 

THE  SCHOLARSHIP  ARGUMENT, 

I- 

The  second  question  is  also  serious :  Are  we  not  bound 
to  receive  these  views  when  they  are  advanced,  not  by  ration- 
alists, but  by  Christians,  and  not  by  ordinary  Christians,  but 
by  men   of   superior  and  unchallengeable   scholarship? 

There  is  a  widespread  idea  among  younger  men  that  the 
so-called  Higher  Critics  must  be  followed  because  their  schol- 
arship settles  the  questions.  This  is  a  great  mistake.  No 
expert  scholarship  can  settle  questions  that  require  a  humble 
heart,  a  believing  mind  and  a  reverent  spirit,  as  well  as  a 
knowledge  of  Hebrew  and  philology ;  and  no  scholarship  can 
be  relied  upon  as  expert  which  is  manifestly  characterized  by 
a  biased  judgment,  a  curious  lack  of  knowledge  of  human 
nature,  and  a  still  more  curious  deference  to  the  views  of  men 
with  a  prejudice  against  the  supernatural.  No  one  can  read 
such  a  suggestive  and  sometimes  even  such  an  inspiring  writer 
as  George  Adam  Smith  without  a  feeling  of  sorrow  that  he 
has  allowed  this  German  bias  of  mind  to  lead  him  into  such 
an  assumption  of  infallibility  in  many  of  his  positions  and 
statements.  It  is  the  same  with  Driver.  With  a  kind  of  sic 
volo  sic  jubeo  airy  ease  he  introduces  assertions  and  proposi- 
tions that  would  really  require  chapter  after  chapter,  if  not 
even  volume  after  volume,  to  substantiate.  On  page  after 
page  his  "must  be,"  and  "could  not  possibly  be,"  and  "could 
certainly  not,"  extort  from  the  average  reader  the  natural  ex- 
clamation:  "But  why?"  "Why  not?"  "Wherefore?"  "On 
what  grounds?"  "For  what  reason?"  "Where  are  the 
proofs?"     But  of  proofs  or  reason  there  is  not  a  trace.     The 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

reader  must  be  content  with  the  writer's  assertions.  It  re- 
minds one,  in  fact,  of  the  "we  may  well  suppose,"  and  **per- 
haps"  of  the  Darwinian  who  offers  as  the  sole  proof  of  the 
origination  of  a  different  species  his  random  supposition ! 
("Modern  Ideas  of  Evolution,"  Dawson,  pages    53-55.) 

A  GREAT  MISTAKE 

There  is  a  widespread  idea  also  among  the  younger  stu- 
dents that  because  Graf  and  Wellhausen  and  Driver  and 
Cheyne  are  experts  in  Hebrew  that,  therefore,  their  deduc- 
tions as  experts  in  language  must  be  received.  This,  too,  is  a 
mistake.  There  is  no  such  difference  in  the  Hebrew  of  the 
so-called  original  sources  of  the  Hexateuch  as  some  suppose. 
The  argument  from  language,  says  Professor  Bissell  ("Intro- 
duction to  Genesis  in  Colors,"  page  vii),  requires  extreme 
care  for  obvious  reasons.  There  is  no  visible  cleavage  line 
among  the  supposed  sources.  Any  man  of  ordinary  intelli- 
gence can  see  at  once  the  vast  difference  between  the  English 
of  Tennyson  and  Shakespeare,  and  Chaucer  and  Sir  John  de 
Mandeville.  But  no  scholar  in  the  world  ever  has  or  ever 
will  be  able  to  tell  the  dates  of  each  and  every  book  in  the 
Bible  by  the  style  of  the  Hebrew.  (See  Sayce,  "Early  His- 
tory of  the  Hebrews,"  page  109.)  The  unchanging  Orient 
knows  nothing  of  the  swift  lingual  variations  of  the  Occi- 
dent. Pusey,  with  his  masterly  scholarship,  has  shown  how 
even  the  Book  of  Daniel,  from  the  standpoint  of  philology, 
cannot  possibly  be  a  product  of  the  time  of  the  Maccabees. 
("On  Daniel,"  pages  23-59.)  The  late  Professor  of  Hebrew 
in  the  University  of  Toronto,  Professor  Hirschfelder,  in  his 
very  learned  work  on  Genesis,  says:  "We  would  search  in 
vain  for  any  peculiarity  either  in  the  language  or  the  sense 

62 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

that  would  indicate  a  two-fold  authorship."  As  far  as  the 
language  of  the  original  goes,  "the  most  fastidious  critic  could 
not  possibly  detect  the  slightest  peculiarity  that  would  indi- 
cate it  to  be  derived  from  two  sources"  (page  y2).  Dr.  Emil 
Reich  also,  in  his  "Bankruptcy  of  the  Higher  Criticism,"  in 
the  Contemporary  Review,  April,  1905,  says  the  same  thing. 

NOT    ALL   ON    ONE    SIDE 

A  third  objection  remains,  a  most  serious  one.  It  is  that 
all  the  scholarship  is  on  one  side.  The  old-fashioned  conserva- 
tive views  are  no  longer  maintained  by  men  with  pretension  to 
scholarship.  The  only  people  who  oppose  the  Higher  Critical 
views  are  the  ignorant,  the  prejudiced,  and  the  illiterate. 
(Briggs'  ''Bible,  Church  and  Reason,"  pages  240-247.) 

This,  too,  is  a  matter  that  needs  a  little  clearing  up.  In 
the  first  place  it  is  not  fair  to  assert  that  the  upholders  of 
what  are  called  the  old-fashioned  or  traditional  views  of  the 
Bible  are  opposed  to  the  pursuit  of  scientific  Biblical  investi- 
gation. It  is  equally  unfair  to  imagine  that  their  opposition 
to  the  views  of  the  Continental  school  is  based  upon  ignorance 
and  prejudice. 

What  the  Conservative  school  oppose  is  not  Biblical  criti- 
cism, but  Biblical  criticism  by  rationalists.  They  do  not  op- 
pose the  conclusions  of  Wellhausen  and  Kuenen  because  they 
are  experts  and  scholars;  they  oppose  them  because  the  Bib- 
lical criticism  of  rationalists  and  unbelievers  can  be  neither 
expert  nor  scientific.  A  criticism  that  is  characterized  by  the 
most  arbitrary  conclusions  from  the  most  spurious  assump- 
tions has  no  right  to  the  word  scientific.  And  further.  Their 
adhesion  to  the  traditional  views  is  not  only  conscientious 
but  intelligent.    They  believe  that  the  old-fashioned  views  are 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

as  scholarly  as  they  are  Scriptural.  It  is  the  fashion  in  some 
quarters  to  cite  the  imposing  list  of  scholars  on  the  side  of 
the  German  school,  and  to  sneeringly  assert  that  there  is  not 
a  scholar  to  stand  up  for  the  old  views  of  the  Bible. 

This  is  not  the  case.  Ilengstenberg  of  Basle  and  Berlin, 
was  as  profound  a  scholar  as  Eichhorn,  Vater  or  De  Wette; 
and  Keil  or  Kurtz,  and  Zahn  and  Rupprecht  were  competent 
to  compete  with  Reuss  and  Kuenen.  Wilhelm  Moller,  wdio 
confesses  that  he  was  once  ''immovably  convinced  of  the  irre- 
futable correctness  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis,"  has 
revised  his  former  radical  conclusions  on  the  ground  of 
reason  and  deeper  research  as  a  Higher  Critic ;  and  Profes- 
sor Winckler,  who  has  of  late  overturned  the  assured  and 
settled  results  of  the  Higher  Critics  from  the  foundations,  is, 
according  to  Orr,  the  leading  Orientalist  in  Germany,  and  a 
man   of   enormous   learning. 

Sayce,  the  Professor  of  Assyriolog}^  at  Oxford,  has  a 
right  to  rank  as  an  expert  and  scholar  with  Cheyne,  the  Oriel 
Professor  of  Scripture  Interpretation.  Margoliouth,  the 
Laudian  Professor  of  Arabic  at  Oxford,  as  far  as  learning  is 
concerned,  is  in  the  same  rank  with  Driver,  the  Regius  Pro- 
fessor of  Hebrew,  and  the  conclusion  of  this  great  scholar 
with  regard  to  one  of  the  widely  vaunted  theories  of  the 
radical   school,   is   almost   amusing  in   its   terseness. 

"Is  there  then  nothing  in  the  splitting  theories,"  he  says 
in  summarizing  a  long  line  of  defense  of  the  unity  of  the  book 
of  Isaiah;  "is  there  then  nothing  in  the  splitting  theories? 
To  my  mind,  nothing  at  all!"     ("Lines  of  Defense,"  page 

136.) 

Green  and  Bissell  are  as  able,  if  not  abler,  scholars  than 
Robertson  Smith  and  Professor  Briggs,  and  both  of  these 
men,  as  a  result  of  the  widest  and  deepest  research,  have  come 

(>4 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Crllicism 

to  the  conclusion  that  the  theories  of  the  Germans  are  unsci- 
entific, unhistorical,  and  unscholarly.  The  last  words  of  Pro- 
fessor Green  in  his  very  able  work  on  the  ''Higher  Criticism 
of  the  Pentateuch"  are  most  suggestive.  ''Would  it  not  be 
wiser  for  them  to  revise  their  own  ill-judged  alliance  with 
the  enemies  of  evangelical  truth,  and  inquire  whether  Christ's 
view  of  the  Old  Testament  may  not,  after  all,  be  the  true 
view  ?" 

Yes.  That,  after  all,  is  the  great  and  final  question.  We 
trust  we  are  not  ignorant.  We  feel  sure  we  are  not  malignant. 
We  desire  to  treat  no  m.an  unfairly,  or  set  down  aught  in 
malice. 

But  we  desire  to  stand  with  Christ  and  His  Church.  If 
we  have  any  prejudice,  we  would  rather  be  prejudiced  against 
rationalism.  If  we  have  any  bias,  it  must  be  against  a  teach- 
ing which  unsteadies  heart  and  unsettles  faith.  Even  at  the 
expense  of  being  thought  behind  the  times,  we  prefer  to 
stand  with  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  in  receiving  the 
Scriptures  as  the  Word  of  God,  without  objection  and  with- 
out a  doubt.  A  little  learning,  and  a  little  listening  to  ration- 
alistic theorizers  and  sympathizers  may  incline  us  to  uncer- 
tainty ;  but  deeper  study  and  deeper  research  will  incline  us 
as  it  inclined  Hengstenberg  and  Moller,  to  the  profoundest 
conviction  of  the  authority  and  authenticity  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  to  cry,  "Thy  word  is  very  pure;  therefore, 
Thy  servant  loveth  it." 

APPENDIX 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  add  here  a  small  list  of 
reading  matter  that  will  help  the  reader  who  wants  to 
strengthen  his  position  as  a  simple  believer  in  tke  Bible.    As  I 

6; 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

said  before,  a  large  list  would  be  altogether  too  cumbersome. 
I  would  only  put  down  those  that  I  have  personally  found 
most  valuable  and  suggestive.  If  one  can  afford  only  one 
or  two,  I  would  suggest  Green  and  Kennedy ;  or  Munhall  and 
Parker;  or  Saphir  and  Anderson;  or  Orr  and  Urquhart. 

The  most  massive  and  scholarly  are  Home's  Introduction, 
and  Pusey  on  Daniel,  but  they  are  deep,  heavy  and  suitable 
only  for  the  more  cultured  and  trained  readers. 


GREEN. 
GREEN. 

GREEN. 


ORR. 
ORR. 

BISSELL. 
BISSELL. 

MUNHALL. 
MOLLER. 


"The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch." 
(Scribner's.) 

"General    Introduction   to   the   Old   Testa- 
ment," in  two  volumes;  the  Text  and  the 
Canon.      (Scribner's.) 
"Unity  of  Genesis."     (Scribner's.) 
The  foregoing  are  very  good.     Green  was 
a    great    scholar,    the     Princeton   Professor 
of  Oriental  and  Old  Testament  Literature, 
a    man    who    deeply    loved    the    Bible    and 
the  Lord  Jesus.     He  is  perhaps  the  strong- 
est of  the  scholarly  opponents   of  the  ra- 
tionalistic   Higher    Critics. 
"The   Bible   under  Trial."      (Armstrong   & 
Son,  New  York.) 

"The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament." 
(Nesbit  &  Co.) 

Dr.  Orr  is  one  of  the  ablest  and  most 
scholarly  writers  in  the  English-speaking 
world  today. 

"The  Pentateuch.  Its  Origin  and  Struc- 
ture."     (Scribner's.) 

"Introduction  to  Genesis."  Printed  in  col- 
ors. 

Bissell  is  a  careful  scholar,  and  writes  from 
the  conservative  side.  Able,  but  not  so 
firm   as   Green. 

"The  Highest  Critic  vs.  the  Higher  Crit- 
ics."    (Revell.) 

By  an  evangelist,  and  therefore  from  the 
earnest  rather  than  the  expert  standpoint. 
More  to  the  level  of  the  average  reader 
than  Green  or  Bissell. 
"Are  the  Critics  Right?"  (Revell.) 
By  a  former  follower  of  Graf-Wellhausen 
and  most  interesting  to  the  scholarly. 
Hardiv  suitable  for  the  average  reader,  as 

'  6c 


The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism 


MARGOLIOUTH. 


ANDERSON. 


PARKER. 

SAYCE. 

WALLER. 
KENNEBY. 

SHERATON. 


it  assumes  familiarity  with  the  technicali- 
ties of  the  German  critical  school. 
"Lines  of  Defence  of  the  Biblical  Revela- 
tion." (Hodder  &  Stoughton.)  Academic 
and  technical;  intensely  interesting.  His 
reasoning  is  not  equally  powerful  through- 
out,  however. 

"The  Bible  and  Modern  Criticism."  (Re- 
vell.) 

The  work  of  a  layman,  vigorous  and  earn- 
est.    He  gives  no  uncertain  sound. 
"None  Like  It."    A  plea  for  the  old  sword. 
(Revell.) 

Vigorous  and  slashing,  too,  but  grand  in 
the  eloquence  of  its  pleadings.  Every  min- 
ister should  read  it.  Brimming  with  sancti- 
fied   common    sense. 

"The  Early  History  of  the  Hebrews." 
(Rivington's.) 

The    chapter    on    the    composition    of    the 
Pentateuch   is   very   strong. 
"Moses  and  the  Prophets."     (Nisbet.) 
A  vigorous  and  unanswerable   criticism  of 
Driver's   treatment   of  the   Pentateuch. 
"Old  Testament   Criticism  and  the   Rights 
of  the  Unlearned."     (Revell.) 
A  small  and  cheap   book,  but  well   worth 
study. 

"The  Higher  Criticism."  (The  Tract  So- 
ciety,  Toronto.) 

A  most  valuable  little  work.  Thoroughly 
up-to-date. 


The  following  works  also,  although  they  are  not  exactly 
along  the  line  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  are  most  valuable  and 
suggestive : 


SAPHIR. 


SAPHIR. 


PIERSON. 


"Christ    and    the    Scriptures."      (Montrose 
Christian    Literature    Society.) 
A  little  book,  but  a  multum  in  parvo.     To 
my  mind   for  its   size  the  best  thing  every 
written   on   the   subject. 
"The  Divine  Unity  of  Scripture."     (Mont- 
rose   Christian    Literature    Society.) 
A    great    book    full    of    well    cooked    meat. 
Most    scholarly,     deeply    spiritual,    always 
suggestive. 

"Many    Infallible    Proofs."      (Revell.) 
Earnest,    full,    illustrative;    most    helpful. 

67 


The  Higlier  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

URQUHART.  "The  Inspiration  and  Accuracy  of  the  Holy 

Scriptures."     (Gospel  Publishing  House,  New 

York.) 

Excellent  and  scholarly. 
GIBSON.  *The    Ages    before    Moses."      (Oliphant's, 

Edinburgh.) 

A    most    valuable     and    suggestive     work. 

Especially  useful  to  young  ministers. 
GIBSON.  "The  Mosaic  Era."  (Randolph,  New  York.) 

Spiritual    and   suggestive  also. 

A  scholarly   friend   suggests  also  the   following: 

Rev.  Thos.  Whitelaw,  M.  A.,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  on  "The  Old 
Testament   Problem." 

James  W.  Thurtle,  LL.  D.,  D.  D.,  on  "Old  Testament  Prob- 
lems." 

C.  H.  Rouse.  M.  A.,  LL.  B.,  D.  D.,  on  "Old  Testament  Criti- 
cism in  New  Testament  Light." 

Rev.  Hugh  MTntosh,  M.  A.,  on  "Is  Christ  Infallible  and  The 
Bible  True?" 


68 


CHAPTER  III 
FALLACIES  PF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

BY  FRANK.UN  JOJJNSON,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

The  errors  of  the  higlier  criticism  of  which  I  shall  write 
pertain  to  its  very  substance.  Those  of  a  secondary  character 
the  limits  of  my  space  forbid  me  to  consider.  My  discussion 
might  be  greatly  expanded  by  additional  masses  of  illustra- 
tive material,  and  hence  I  close  it  with  a  list  of  books  which 
I  recommend  to  persons  who  may  wish  to  pursue  the  subject 
further. 

DEFINITION  OF  ''XHE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  '* 

As  an  introduction  to  the  fundamental  fallacies  of  the 
higher  criticism,  let  me  state  what  the  higher  criticism  is,  and 
then  what  the  higher  critics  tells  us  they  have  achieved. 

The  name  ''the  higher  criticism"  was  coined  by  Eichhorn, 
who  lived  from  1752  to  1827.  Zenos,*  after  careful  con- 
sideration, adopts  the  definition  of  the  name  given  by  its 
author:  "The  discovery  and  verification  of  the  facts  regard- 
ing the  origin,  form  and  value  of  literary  productions  upon 
the  basis  of  their  internal  characters."  The  higher  critics  are 
not  blind  to  some  other  sources  of  argument.  They  refer  to 
history  where  they  can  gain  any  polemic  advantage  by  doing 
so.     The  background  of  the  entire  picture  which  they  bring 

*"The   Elements   of  the   Higher   Criticism." 

69 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Nezv  Theology 

to  us  is  the  assumption  that  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  is 
true.  But  after  all  their  chief  appeal  is  to  the  supposed  evi- 
dence of  the  documents  themselves. 

Other  names  for  the  movement  have  been  sought.  It  has 
been  called  the  "historic  view,"  on  the  assumption  that  it  rep- 
resents the  real  history  of  the  Hebrew  people  as  it  must  have 
unfolded  itself  by  the  orderly  processes  of  human  evolutioa 
But,  as  the  higher  critics  contradict  the  testimony  of  all  the 
Hebrew  historic  documents  which  profess  to  be  early,  their 
theory  might  better  be  called  the  "unhistoric  view."  The 
higher  criticism  has  sometimes  been  called  the  "documentary 
hypothesis."  But  as  all  schools  of  criticism  and  all  doctrines  of 
inspiration  are  equally  hospitable  to  the  supposition  that  the 
biblical  writers  may  have  consulted  documents,  and  may  have 
quoted  them,  the  higher  criticism  has  no  special  right  to  this 
title.  We  must  fall  back,  therefore,  upon  the  name  "the 
higher  criticism"  as  the  very  best  at  our  disposal,  and  upon 
the  definition  of  it  as  chiefly  an  inspection  of  literary  pro- 
ductions in  order  to  ascertain  their  dates,  their  authors,  and 
their  value,  as  they  themselves,  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the 
hypothesis  of  evolution,  may  yield  the  evidence. 

''assured  results"  of  the  higher  criticism 

I  turn  now  to  ask  what  the  higher  critics  profess  to  have 
found  out  by  this  method  of  study.  The  "assured  results"  on 
which  they  congratulate  themselves  are  stated  variously.  In 
this  country  and  England  they  commonly  assume  a  form  less 
radical  than  that  given  them  in  Germany,  though  sufficiently 
startling  and  destructive  to  arouse  vigorous  protest  and  a  vig- 
orous demand  for  the  evidences,  which,  as  we  shall  see,  have 
not  been  produced  and  cannot  be  produced.    The  less  startling 

70 


The  Fallacies  of  the  Higher  Criticism- 

form  of  the  "assured  results"  usually  announced  in  England 
and  America  may  be  owing  to  the  brighter  light  of  Christian- 
ity in  these  countries.  Yet  it  should  be  noticed  that  there  are 
higher  critics  in  this  country  and  England  who  go  beyond  the 
principal  German  representatives  of  the  school  in  their  zeal 
for  the  dethronement  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  in 
so  far  as  these  holy  books  are  presented  to  the  world  as  the 
very  Word   of  God,  as  a  special  revelation   from   heaven. 

The  following  statement  from  Zenos  may  serve  to  intro- 
duce us  to  the  more  moderate  form  of  the  ''assured  results" 
reached  by  the  higher  critics.  It  is  concerning  the  analysis  of 
the  Pentateuch,  or  rather  of  the  Hexateuch,  the  Book  of 
Joshua  being  included  in  the  survey.  ''The  Hexateuch  is  a 
composite  work  whose  origin  and  history  may  be  traced  in  four 
distinct  stages:  (i)  A  writer  designated  as  J.  Jahvist,  or  Je- 
hovist,  or  Judean  prophetic  historian,  composed  a  history  of 
the  people  of  Israel  about  800  B.  C.  (2)  A  writer  designated 
as  E.  Elohist,  or  Ephraemite  prophetic  historian,  wrote  a  simi- 
lar work  some  fifty  years  later,  or  about  750  B.  C.  These  two 
were  used  separately  for  a  time,  but  were  fused  together  into 
JE  by  a  redactor  [an  editor],  at  the  end  of  the  seventh  cen- 
tury. (3)  A  writer  of  different  character  wrote  a  book  consti- 
tuting the  main  portion  of  our  present  Deuteronomy  during 
the  reign  of  Josiah,  or  a  short  time  before  621  B.  C.  This 
writer  is  designated  as  D.  To  his  work  were  added  an  intro- 
duction and  an  appendix,  and  with  these  accretions  it  was 
united  with  JE  by  a  second  redactor,  constituting  JED.  (4) 
Contemporaneously  with  Ezekiel  the  ritual  law  began  to  be 
reduced  to  writing.  It  first  appeared  in  three  parallel  forms. 
These  were  codified  by  Ezra  not  very  much  earlier  than  444 
B.  C.,  and  between  that  date  and  280  B.  C.  it  was  joined  with 
JED  by  a  final  redactor.    Thus  no  less  than  nine  or  ten  men 

71 


The  Higher  Criiicism   and  The  New  Theology 

were  engaged  in  the  production  of  the  Hexateiich  in  its  pres- 
ent form,  and  each  one  can  be  distinguished  from  the  rest  by 
his  vocabulary  and  st3de  and  his  reUgious  point  of  view." 

Such  is  the  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  as  usually  stated  in 
this  country.  But  in  Germany  and  Holland  its  chief  represen- 
tatives carry  the  division  of  labor  much  further.  Wellhausen 
distributes  the  total  task  among  twenty-two  writers,  and 
Kuenen  among  eighteen.  Many  others  resolve  each  individual 
writer  into  a  school  of  writers,  and  thus  multiply  the  numbers 
enormously.  There  is  no  agreement  among  the  higher  critics 
concerning  this  analysis,  and  therefore  the  cautious  learner 
may  wtW  wait  till  those  who  represent  the  theory  tell  him  just 
what  it  is  they  desire  him  to  learn. 

While  some  of  the  "assured  results"  are  thus  in  doubt, 
certain  things  are  matters  of  general  agreement.  Moses  wrote 
little  or  nothing,  if  he  ever  existed.  A  large  part  of  the 
Hexateuch  consists  of  unhistorical  legends.  We  may  grant 
that  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Ishmael  and  Esau  existed,  or  we 
may  deny  this.  In  either  case,  what  is  recorded  of  them  is 
chiefly  myth.  These  denials  of  the  truth  of  the  written  records 
follow  as  matters  of  course  from  the  late  dating  of  the  books, 
and  the  assumption  that  the  writers  could  set  down  only  the 
national  tradition.  They  may  have  worked  in  part  as  collec- 
tors of  written  stories  to  be  found  here  and  there;  but,  if  so, 
these  written  stories  were  not  ancient,  and  they  were  diluted 
by  stories  transmitted  orally.  These  fragments,  whether  writ- 
ten or  oral,  must  have  followed  the  general  law  of  national 
traditions,  and  have  presented  a  mixture  of  legendary  chaff, 
with  here  and  there  a  grain  of  historic  truth  to  be  sifted  out 
by  careful  winnowing. 

Thus  far  of  the  Hexateuch. 

The  Psalms  are  so  full  of  references  to  the  Hexateuch 

72 


The  Fallacies  of  iJie  Higher  Criticism 

that  they  must  have  been  written  after  it,  and  hence  after  the 
captivity,  perhaps  beginning  about  400  B.  C.  David  may  pos- 
sibly have  written  one  or  two  of  them,  but  probably  he  v.Tote 
none,  and  the  strong  conviction  of  the  Hebrew  people  that  he 
was  their  greatest  hymn-writer  was  a  total  mistake. 

These  revolutionary  processes  are  carried  into  the  New 
Testament,  and  that  also  is  found  to  be  largely  untrustworthy 
as  history,  as  doctrine,  and  as  ethics,  though  a  very  good  book, 
since  it  gives  expression  to  high  ideals,  and  thus  ministers  to 
the  spiritual  life.  It  may  well  have  influence,  but  it  can  have 
no  divine  authority.  The  Christian  reader  should  consider 
carefully  this  invasion  of  the  New  Testament  by  the  higher 
criticism.  So  long  as  the  movement  was  confined  to  the  Old 
Testament  many  good  men  looked  on  with  indifference,  not 
reflecting  that  the  Bible,  though  containing  "many  parts"  by 
many  writers,  and  though  recording  a  progressive  revelation, 
is,  after  all,  one  book.  But  the  limits  of  the  Old  Testament 
have  long  since  been  overpassed  by  the  higher  critics,  and  it  is 
demanded  of  us  that  we  abandon  the  immemorial  teaching  of 
the  church  concerning  the  entire  volume.  The  picture  of 
Christ  which  the  New  Testament  sets  before  us  is  in  many 
respects  mistaken.  The  doctrines  of  primitive  Christianity 
which  it  states  and  defends  were  well  enough  for  the  time, 
but  have  no  value  for  us  today  except  as  they  commend 
themselves  to  our  independent  judgment.  Its  moral  precepts 
are  fallible,  and  w^e  should  accept  them  or  reject  them  freely, 
in  accordance  w^th  the  greater  light  of  the  twentieth  century. 
Even  Christ  could  err  concerning  ethical  questions,  and  neither 
His  commandments  nor  His  example  need  constrain  us. 

The  foregoing  may  serve  as  an  introductory  sketch,  all  too 
brief,  of  the  higher  criticism,  and  as  a  basis  of  the  discussion 
of  its  fallacies,  n©w  immediately  to  follow. 

72> 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Nezv  Theology 


FIRST  FALLACY  :  THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

T.  The  first  fallacy  that  I  shall  bring  forward  is  its  analy- 
sis of  the  Pentateuch. 

I.  We  cannot  fail  to  observe  that  these  various  docu- 
ments and  their  various  authors  and  editors  are  only  imagined. 
As  Green"^  has  said,  "There  is  no  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
these  documents  and  redactors,  and  no  pretense  of  any,  apart 
from  the  critical  tests  which  have  determined  the  analysis.  All 
tradition  and  all  historical  testimony  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
Pentateuch  are  against  them.  The  burden  of  proof  is  wholly 
upon  the  critics.  And  this  proof  should  be  clear  and  convinc- 
ing in  proportion  to  the  gravity  and  the  revolutionary  char- 
acter of  the  consequences  which  it  is  proposed  to  base  upon  it." 

2.  Moreover,  we  know  what  can  be  done,  or  rather  what 
cannot  be  done,  in  the  analysis  of  composite  literary  produc- 
tions. Some  of  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  are  called  his  "mixed 
plays,"  because  it  is  known  that  he  collaborated  with  another 
author  in  their  production.  The  very  keenest  critics  have 
sought  to  separate  his  part  in  these  plays  from  the  rest,  but 
they  confess  that  the  result  is  uncertainty  and  dissatisfaction. 
Coleridge  professed  to  distinguish  the  passages  contributed  by 
Shakespeare  by  a  process  of  feeling,  but  Macaulay  pronounced 
this  claim  to  be  nonsense,  and  the  entire  effort,  whether  made 
by  the  analysis  of  phraseology  ar  -^  style,  or  by  esthetic  percep- 
tions, is  an  admitted  failure.  And  this  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  style  of  Shakespeare  is  one  of  the  most  peculiar  and 
inimitable.  The  Anglican  Prayer  Book  is  another  composite 
production  which  the  higher  critics  have  often  been  invited  to 


♦"Moses  and  His  Recent   Critics,"  pages  104,   105. 

74 


The  Fallacies  of  I  he  Higher  Criticism 

analyze  and  distribute  to  its  various  sources.  Some  of  the 
authors  of  these  sources  hved  centuries  apart.  They  are  now 
well  known  from  the  studies  of  historians.  But  the  Prayer 
Book  itself  does  not  reveal  one  of  them,  though  its  various 
vocabularies  and  styles  have  been  carefully  interrogated.  Now 
if  the  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  can  lead  to  such  certainties, 
why  should  not  the  analysis  of  Shakespeare  and  the  Prayer 
Book  do  as  much?  How  can  men  accomplish  in  a  foreign  lan- 
guage what  they  cannot  accomplish  in  their  own?  How  can 
they  accomplish  in  a  dead  language  what  they  cannot  accom- 
plish in  a  living  language?  How  can  they  distinguish  ten  or 
eighteen  or  twenty-two  collaborators  in  a  small  literary  pro- 
duction, when  they  cannot  distinguish  two?  These  ques- 
tions have  been  asked  many  times,  but  the  higher  critics  have 
given  no  answer  whatever,  preferring  the  safety  of  a  learned 
silence : 

"The  oracles  are  dumb." 

3.  Much  has  been  made  of  differences  of  vocabulary  in 
the  Pentateuch,  and  elaborate  lists  of  words  have  been  assigned 
to  each  of  the  supposed  authors.  But  these  distinctions  fade 
away  when  subjected  to  careful  scrutiny,  and  Driver  admits 
that  "the  phraseological  criteria  '"^  "  *  are  slight."  Orr,* 
who  quotes  this  testimony,  adds,  "They  are  slight,  in  fact,  to 
a  degree  of  tenuity  that  often  makes  the  recital  of  them  appear 
like   trifling." 


=*"The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament,"  page  230. 

75 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

SECOND     FALLACY  :    THE    THEORY    OF     EVOLUTION     APPLIED    TO 
LITERATURE  AND  RELIGION. 

II.  A  second  fundamental  fallacy  of  the  higher  criticism 
is  its  dependence  on  the  theory  of  evolution  as  the  explana- 
tion of  the  history  of  literature  and  of  religion.  The  progress 
of  the  higher  criticism  towards  its  present  state  has  been  rapid 
and  assured  since  Vatke^  discovered  in  the  Hegelian  philos- 
ophy of  evolution  a  means  of  biblical  criticism.  The  Spen- 
cerian  philosophy  of  evolution,  aided  and  reinforced  by  Dar- 
winism, has  added  greatly  to  the  confidence  of  the  higher 
critics.  As  Vatke,  one  of  the  earlier  members  of  the  school, 
made  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  the  guiding  presupposition 
of  his  critical  work,  so  today  does  Professor  Jordan,'  the  very 
latest  representative  of  the  higher  criticism.  "The  nineteenth 
century,"  he  declares,  "has  applied  to  the  history  of  the  docu- 
ments of  the  Hebrew  people  its  own  magic  word,  evolution. 
'Tlie  thought  represented  by  that  popular  word  has  been  found 
to  have  a  real  meaning  in  our  investigations  regarding  the 
religious  life  and  the  theological  beliefs  of  Israel."  Thus, 
were  there  no  hypothesis  of  evolution,  there  would  be  no 
higher  criticism.  The  "assured  results''  of  the  higher  criticism 
have  been  gained,  after  all,  not  by  an  inductive  study  of  the 
biblical  books  to  ascertain  if  they  present  a  great  variety  of 
styles  and  vocabularies  and  religious  points  of  view.  They 
have  been  attained  by  assuming  that  the  hypothesis  of  evo- 
lution is  true,  and  that  the  religion  of  Israel  must  have  un- 


"'Die   Biblische   Theologie  Wissenschaftlich  Dargestellt." 
'"Biblical  Criticism  and  Modern  Thought,"  T.  and  T.   Clark, 
1909. 


The  Fallacies  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

folded  itself  by  a  process  of  natural  evolution.  They  have 
been  attained  by  an  interested  cross-examination  of  the  biblical 
books  to  constrain  them  to  admit  the  hypothesis  of  evolution. 
The  imagination  has  played  a  large  part  in  the  process,  and 
the  so-called  evidences  upon  which  the  "assured  results"  rest 
are  largely  imaginary. 

But  the  hypothesis  of  evolution,  when  applied  to  the  his- 
tory of  literature,  is  a  fallacy,  leaving  us  utterly  unable  to 
account  for  Homer,  or  Dante,  or  Shakespeare,  the  greatest 
poets  of  the  world,  yet  all  of  them  writing  in  the  dawn  of  the 
great  literatures  of  the  world.  It  is  a  fallacy  when  applied  to 
the  history  of  religion,  leaving  us  utterly  unable  to  account  for 
Abraham  and  Moses  and  Christ,  and  requiring  us  to  deny  that 
they  could  have  been  such  men  as  the  Bible  declares  them  to 
have  been.  The  hypothesis  is  a  fallacy  when  applied  to  the 
history  of  the  human  race  in  general.  Our  race  has  made 
progress  under  the  influence  of  supernatural  revelation;  but 
progress  under  the  influence  of  supernatural  revelation  is  one 
thing,  and  evolution  is  another.  Buckle*  undertook  to  account 
for  history  by  a  thorough-going  application  of  the  hypothesis 
of  evolution  to  its  problems;  but  no  historian  today  believes 
that  he  succeeded  in  his  effort,  and  his  work  is  universally  re- 
garded as  a  brilliant  curiosity.  The  types  of  evolution  advo- 
cated by  different  higher  critics  are  widely  different  from  one 
another,  varying  from  the  pure  naturalism  of  Wellhauscn  to 
the  recognition  of  some  feeble  rays  of  supernatural  revelation ; 
but  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  in  any  form,  when  applied  to 
human  history,  blinds  us  and  renders  us  incapable  of  beholding 
the  glory  of  God  in  its  more  signal  manifestations. 

♦"History  of   Civilization  in   England." 

77 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

THIRD  FALLACY  I  THE  BIBLE  A   NATURAL  BOOK 

III,  A  third  fallacy  of  the  higher  critics  is  the  doctrine 
concerning  the  Scriptures  which  they  teach.  If  a  consistent 
hypothesis  of  evolution  is  made  the  basis  of  our  religious 
thinking,  the  Bible  will  be  regarded  as  only  a  product  of 
human  nature  working  in  the  field  of  religious  literature.  It 
will  be  merely  a  natural  book.  If  there  are  higher  critics  who 
recoil  from  this  application  of  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  and 
who  seek  to  modify  it  by  recognizing  some  special  evidences 
of  the  divine  in  the  Bible,  the  inspiration  of  which  they  speak 
rises  but  little  higher  than  the  providential  guidance  of  the 
writers.  The  church  doctrine  of  the  full  inspiration  of  the 
Bible  is  almost  never  held  by  the  higher  critics  of  any  class, 
even  of  the  more  believing.  Here  and  there  we  may  dis- 
cover one  and  another  who  try  to  save  some  fragments  of 
the  church  doctrine,  but  they  are  few  and  far  between,  and 
the  salvage  to  which  they  cling  is  so  small  and  poor  that  it 
is  scarcely  worth  while.  Throughout  their  ranks  the  storm 
of  opposition  to  the  supernatural  in  all  its  forms  is  so  fierce 
as  to  leave  little  place  for  the  faith  of  the  church  that  the 
Bible  is  the  very  Word  of  God  to  man.  But  the  fallacy  of 
this  denial  is  evident  to  every  believer  who  reads  the  Bible 
with  an  open  mind.  He  knows  by  an  immediate  conscious- 
ness that  it  is  the  product  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  the  sheep 
know  the  voice  of  the  shepherd,  so  the  mature  Christian 
knows  that  the  Bible  speaks  with  a  divine  voice.  On  this 
ground  every  Christian  can  test  the  value  of  the  higher 
criticism  for  himself.  The  Bible  manifests  itself  to  the  spirit- 
ual perception  of  the  Christian  as  in  the  fullest  sense  human, 
and  in  the  fullest  sense  divine.  This  is  true  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  well  as  of  the  New. 

78 


The  Fallacies  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

FOURTH  FALLACY  :  THE  MIRACLES  DENIED 

IV.  Yet  another  fallacy  of  the  higher  critics  is  found 
in  their  teachings  concerning  the  biblical  miracles.  If  the  hy- 
pothesis of  evolution  is  applied  to  the  Scriptures  consistently, 
it  will  lead  us  to  deny  all  the  miracles  which  they  record.  But 
if  applied  timidly  and  waveringly,  as  it  is  by  some  of  the  Eng- 
lish and  American  higher  critics,  it  will  lead  us  to  deny  a 
large  part  of  the  miracles,  and  to  inject  as  much  of  the  nat- 
ural as  is  any  way  possible  into  the  rest.  We  shall  strain 
out  as  much  of  the  gnat  of  the  supernatural  as  we  can,  and 
swallow  as  much  of  the  camel  of  evolution  as  we  can.  We 
shall  probably  reject  all  the  miracles  of  the  Old  Testament, 
explaining  some  of  them  as  popular  legends,  and  others  as 
coincidences.  In  the  New  Testament  we  shall  pick  and 
choose,  and  no  two  of  us  will  agree  concerning  those  to  be 
rejected  and  those  to  be  accepted.  If  the  higher  criticism 
shall  be  adopted  as  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  believers  will 
be  left  in  a  distressing  state  of  doubt  and  uncertainty  con- 
cerning the  narratives  of  the  four  Gospels,  and  unbelievers 
will  scoff  and  mock.  A  theory  which  leads  to  such  wander- 
ings of  thought  regarding  the  supernatural  in  the  Scriptures 
must  be  fallacious.     God  is  not  a  God  of  confusion. 

Among  the  higher  critics  who  accept  some  of  the  miracles 
there  is  a  notable  desire  to  discredit  the  virgin  birth  of  our 
Lord,  and  their  treatment  of  this  event  presents  a  good  exam- 
ple of  the  fallacies  of  reasoning  by  m.ans  of  which  they 
would  abolish  many  of  the  other  miracles.  One  feature  of 
their  argument  may  suffice  as  an  exhibition  of  all.  It  is  the 
search  fer  parallels  in  the  pagan  mythologies.  There  are 
many  instances  in  the  pagan  stories  of  the  birth  of  men  from 
human   mothers  and   divine   fathers,   and   the   higher  critics 

79 


The  HigJicr  Criticism  and  The  Nezv  Theology 

would  create  the  impression  that  the  writers  who  record  the 
birth  of  Christ  were  influenced  by  these  fables  to  emulate 
them,  and  thus  to  secure  for  Him  the  honor  of  a  celestial 
paternity.  It  turns  out,  however,  that  these  pagan  fables  do 
not  in  any  case  present  to  us  a  virgin  mother;  the  child  is 
always  the  product  of  commerce  with  a  god  who  assumes  a 
human  form  for  the  purpose.  The  despair  of  the  higher 
critics  in  this  hunt  for  events  of  the  same  kind  is  well  illus- 
trated by  Cheyne,*  who  cites  the  record  of  the  Babylonian 
king  Sargon,  about  3800  B.  C.  This  monarch  represents 
himself  as  having  ''been  born  of  a  poor  mother  in  secret,  and 
as  not  knowing  his  father."  There  have  been  many  millions 
of  such  instances,  but  we  do  not  think  of  the  mothers  as 
virgins.  Nor  does  the  Babylonian  story  affirm  that  the  mother 
of  Sargon  was  a  virgin,  or  even  that  his  father  was  a  god.  It 
is  plain  that  Sargon  did  not  intend  to  claim  a  supernatural 
origin,  for,  after  saying  that  he  "did  not  know  his  father,"  he 
adds  that  "the  brother  of  his  father  lived  in  the  mountains." 
It  was  a  case  like  multitudes  of  others  in  which  children,  early 
orphaned,  have  not  known  their  fathers,  but  have  known  the 
relations  of  their  fathers.  This  statement  of  Sargon  I  quote 
from  a  translation  of  it  made  by  Cheyne  himself  in  the  "En- 
cyclopedia Biblica."  He  continues,  "There  is  reason  to  sus- 
pect that  something  similar  was  originally  said  by  the  Israel- 
ites of  Moses."  To  substantiate  this  he  adds,  "See  Encyclo- 
pedia Biblica,  'Moses,'  section  3  with  note  4."  On  turning  to 
this  reference  the  reader  finds  that  the  article  was  written 
by  Cheyne  himself,  and  that  it  contains  no  evidence  whatever. 


*"Bible  Problems/'  page  86. 

80 


The  Fallacies  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

FIFTH    fallacy:  THE  TESTIMONY   OF  ARCHAEOLOGY   DENIED 

V.  The  limitation  of  the  field  of  research  as  far  as 
possible  to  the  biblical  books  as  literary  productions  has  ren- 
dered many  of  the  higher  critics  reluctant  to  admit  the  new 
light  derived  from  archaeology.  This  is  granted  by  Cheyne.* 
'T  have  no  wish  to  deny,"  he  says,  "that  the  so-called  'higher 
critics'  in  the  past  were  as  a  rule  suspicious  of  Assyriology  as 
a  young,  and,  as  they  thought,  too  self-assertive  science,  and 
that  many  of  those  who  now  recognize  its  contributions  to 
knowledge  are  somewhat  too  mechanical  in  the  use  of  it,  and 
too  skeptical  as  to  the  influence  of  Babylonian  culture  in  re- 
latively early  times  in  Syria,  Palestine  and  even  Arabia."  This 
grudging  recognition  of  the  testimony  of  archaeology  may 
be  observed  in  several  details. 

I.  It  was  said  that  the  Hexateuch  must  have  been 
formed  chiefly  by  the  gathering  up  of  oral  traditions,  because 
it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  early  Hebrews  possessed 
the  art  of  writing  and  of  keeping  records.  But  the  entire 
progress  of  archaeological  study  refutes  this.  In  particular 
the  discovery  of  the  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets  has  shown  that 
writing  in  cuneiform  characters  and  in  the  Assyrio-Babylon- 
ian  language  was  common  to  the  entire  biblical  world  long 
before  the  exodus.  The  discovery  was  made  by  Egyptian 
peasants  in  1887.  There  are  more  than  three  hundred  tablets, 
which  came  from  various  lands,  including  Babylonia  and 
Palestine.  Other  finds  have  added  their  testimony  to  the  fact 
that  writing  and  the  preservation  of  records  were  the  peculiar 
passions  of  the  ancient  civilized  world.  Under  the  constraint 
of  th**  overwhelming  evidences,  Professor  Jordan  writes  as 


*"Bible    Problems,"    page    142. 

8; 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

follows :  "The  question  as  to  the  age  of  writing  never  played 
a  great  part  in  the  discussion."  He  falls  back  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  nomadic  life  of  the  early  Hebrews  would 
prevent  them  from  acquiring  the  art  of  writing.  He  treats 
us  to  such  reasoning  as  the  following:  "If  the  fact  that 
writing  is  Very  old  is  such  a  powerful  argument  when  taken 
alone,  it  might  enable  you  to  prove  that  Alfred  the  Great 
wrote  Shakespeare's  plays." 

2.  It  was  easy  to  treat  Abraham  as  a  mythical  figure 
when  the  early  records  of  Babylonia  were  but  little  known. 
The  entire  coloring  of  those  chapters  of  Genesis  which  refer 
to  Mesopotamia  could  be  regarded  as  the  product  of  the  im- 
agination. This  is  no  longer  the  case.  Thus  Clay/  writing 
of  Genesis  14,  says :  "The  theory  of  the  late  origin  of  all  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  prompted  the  critics  to  declare  this  nar- 
rative to  be  a  pure  invention  of  a  later  Hebrew  writer.  *  *  * 
The  patriarchs  were  relegated  to  the  region  of  myth  and 
legend.  Abraham  was  made  a  fictitious  father  of  the  Hebrews. 
*  *  *  Even  the  political  situation  was  declared  to  be  incon- 
sistent with  fact.  *  *  *  Weighing  carefully  the  position 
taken  by  the  critics  in  the  light  of  what  has  been  revealed 
through  the  decipherment  of  the  cuneiform  inscriptions,  we 
find  that  the  very  foundations  upon  which  their  theories  rest, 
with  reference  to  the  points  that  could  be  tested,  totally  dis- 
appear. The  truth  is,  that  wherever  any  light  has  been 
thrown  upon  the  subject  through  excavations,  their  hypotheses 
have  invariably  been  found  wanting."  But  the  higher  critics 
are  still  reluctant  to  admit  this  new  light.     Thus  Kent^  says, 


^  "Light  on  the  Old  Testament  from  Babel."  1907.  Clay  is 
Assistant  Professor  and  Assistant  Curator  of  the  Babylonian 
Section,  Department  of  Archaeology,  in  the  University  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. 

'Biblical  World,  Dec,  1906. 

S2 


The  Fallacies  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

"The  primary  value  of  these  stories  is  didactic  and  religious, 
rather  than  historical." 

3.  The  hooks  of  Joshua  and  Judges  have  been  re- 
garded by  the  higher  critics  as  unhistorical  on  the  ground 
that  their  portraiture  of  the  political,  religious,  and  social 
condition  of  Palestine  in  the  thirteenth  century  B.  C.  is  in- 
credible. This  cannot  be  said  any  longer,  for  the  recent 
excavations  in  Palestine  have  shown  us  a  land  exactly  like 
that  of  these  books.  The  portraiture  is  so  precise,  and  is 
drawn  out  in  so  many  minute  lineaments,  that  it  cannot  be 
the  product  of  oral  tradition  floating  down  through  a  thou- 
sand years.  In  what  details  the  accuracy  of  the  biblical  pic- 
ture of  early  Palestine  is  exhibited  may  be  seen  perhaps  best 
in  the  excavations  by  Macalister^  at  Gezer.  Here  again  there 
are  absolutely  no  discrepancies  between  the  Land  and  the 
Book,  for  the  Land  lifts  up  a  thousand  voices  to  testify  that 
the  Book  is  history  and  not  legend. 

4.  It  was  held  by  the  higher  critics  that  the  legislation 
which  we  call  ^^losaic  could  not  have  been  produced  by  Moses, 
since  his  age  was  too  early  for  such  codes.  This  reasoning 
was  completely  negatived  by  the  discovery  of  the  code  of 
Hammurabi,  the  Amraphel'  of  Genesis  14.  This  code  is  very 
different  from  that  of  Moses;  it  is  more  systematic;  and  it 
is  at  least  seven  hundred  years  earlier  than  the  Mosaic  legis- 
lation. 

In  short,  from  the  origin  of  the  higher  criticism  till  this 
present  time  the  discoveries  in  the  field  of  archaeology  have 
given  it  a  succession  of  serious  blows.  The  higher  critics 
were  shocked  when  the  passion  of  the  ancient  world  for  writ- 


^  "Bible   Side-Lights   from   the  Mound  of  Gezer." 
'  On  this  matter  see  any  dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art.      "Am- 
raphel" 

83 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theelegy 

ing  and  the  preservation  of  documents  was  discovered.  They 
were  shocked  when  primitive  Babylonia  appeared  as  the  land 
of  Abraham.  They  were  shocked  when  early  Palestine  ap- 
peared as  the  land  of  Joshua  and  the  Judges.  They  were 
shocked  when  Amraphel  came  back  from  the  grave  as  a 
real  historical  character,  bearing  his  code  of  laws.  They 
were  shocked  when  the  stele  of  the  Pharaoh  of  the  exodus 
was  read,  and  it  was  proved  that  he  knew  a  people  called 
Israel,  that  they  had  no  settled  place  of  abode,  that  they  were 
"without  grain"  for  food,  and  that  in  these  particulars  they 
were  quite  as  they  are  represented  by  the  Scriptures  to  have 
been  when  they  had  fled  from  Egypt  into  the  wilderness.* 
The  embarrassment  created  by  these  discoveries  is  manifest 
in  many  of  the  recent  writings  of  the  higher  critics,  in  which, 
however,  they  still  cling  heroically  to  their  analysis  and  their 
late  dating  of  the  Pentateuch  and  their  confidence  in  the  hypo- 
thesis of  evolution  as  the  key  of  all  history. 

SIXTH  FALLACY  :  THE  PSALMS  WRITTEN  AFTER  THE  EXILE 

VI.  The  Psalms  are  usually  dated  by  the  higher  critics 
after  the  exile.  The  great  majority  of  the  higher  critics  are 
agreed  here,  and  tell  us  that  these  varied  and  touching  and 
magnificent  lyrics  of  religious  experience  all  come  to  us  from 


*The  higher  critics  usually  slur  over  this  remarkable  inscrip- 
tion, and  give  us  neither  an  accurate  translation  nor  a  natural 
interpretation  of  it.  I  have,  therefore,  special  pleasure  in  quoting 
the  following  from  Driver,  "Authority  and  Archaeology,"  page  6i : 
"Whereas  the  other  places  named  in  the  inscription  all  have 
the  determinative  for  'country,'  Ysiraal  has  the  determinative  for 
*men':  it  follows  that  the  reference  is  not  to  the  land  of  Israel,  but 
to  Israel  as  a  tribe  or  people,  whether  migratory,  or  on  the 
march."  Thus  this  distinguished  higher  critic  sanctions  the  view 
of  the  record  which  I  have  adopted.  He  represents  Maspero 
and  Naville  as  doing  the  same. 

84 


The  Fallacies  of  ilw  Higher  Crilicism 

a  period  later  than  450  B.  C.  A  few  of  the  critics  admit  an 
earlier  origin  of  three  or  four  of  them,  but  they  do  this  wav- 
eringly,  grudgingly,  and  against  the  general  consensus  of 
opinion  among  their  fellows.  In  the  Bible  a  very  large  num- 
ber of  the  Psalms  are  ascribed  to  David,  and  these,  with  a  few 
insignificant  and  doubtful  exceptions,  are  denied  to  him  and 
brought  down,  like  the  rest,  to  the  age  of  the  second  temple. 
This  leads  me  to  the  following  observations : 

1.  Who  wrote  the  Psalms?  Here  the  higher  critics  have 
no  answer.  Of  the  period  from  400  to  175  B.  C.  we  are  in 
almost  total  ignorance.  Josephus  knows  almost  nothing  about 
it,  nor  has  any  other  writer  told  us  more.  Yet,  according  to 
the  theory,  it  was  precisely  in  these  centuries  of  silence,  when 
the  Jews  had  no  great  writers,  that  they  produced  this  mag- 
nificent outburst  of  sacred  song. 

2.  This  is  the  more  remarkable  when  we  consider  the 
well  known  men  to  whom  the  theory  denies  the  authorship  of 
any  of  the  Psalms.  The  list  includes  such  names  as  Moses, 
David,  Samuel,  Nathan,  Solomon,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  the 
long  Hst  of  preexilic  prophets.  We  are  asked  to  believe  that 
these  men  composed  no  Psalms,  and  that  the  entire  collection 
was  contributed  by  men  so  obscure  that  they  have  left  no 
single  name  by  which  we  can  identify  them  with  their  work. 

3.  This  will  appear  still  more  extraordinary  if  we  con- 
sider the  times  in  which,  it  is  said,  no  Psalms  were  produced, 
and  contrast  them  with  the  times  in  which  all  of  them  were 
produced.  The  times  in  which  none  were  produced  were  the 
great  times,  the  times  of  growth,  of  mental  ferment,  of  con- 
quest, of  imperial  expansion,  of  disaster,  and  of  recovery. 
The  times  in  which  none  were  produced  were  the  times  •i 
the  splendid  temple  of  Solomon,  with  its  splendid  worship. 
The  timos  in  which  nwie  were  produced  were  the  heroic  timr^ 

85 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  when  the  people  of  Jehovah  struggled 
for  their  existence  against  the  abominations  of  the  pagan 
gods.  On  the  other  hand,  the  times  which  actually  produced 
them  were  the  times  of  growing  legalism,  of  obscurity,  and 
of  inferior  abilities.  All  this  is  incredible.  We  could  be- 
lieve it  only  if  we  first  came  to  believe  that  the  Psalms  are 
vi^orks  of  slight  literary  and  religious  value.  This  is  actually 
done  by  Wellhausen,  who  says,*  "They  certainly  are  to  the 
smallest  extent  original,  and  are  for  the  most  part  imitations 
which  illustrate  the  saying  about  much  writing."  The  Psalms 
are  not  all  of  an  equally  high  degree  of  excellence,  and  there 
are  a  few  of  them  which  might  give  some  faint  color  of 
justice  to  this  depreciation  of  the  entire  collection.  But  as  a 
whole  they  are  exactly  the  reverse  of  this  picture.  Further- 
more, they  contain  absolutely  no  legalism,  but  are  as  free 
from  it  as  are  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  Pauline 
epistles.  Yet  further,  the  writers  stand  out  as  personalities, 
and  they  must  have  left  a  deep  impress'on  upon  their  fellows. 
Finally,  they  were  full  of  the  fire  of  genius  kindled  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to  attribute  the  Psalms 
to  the  unknown  mediocrities  of  the  period  which  followed 
the  restoration. 

4.  Very  many  of  the  Psalms  plainly  appear  to  be  ancient. 
They  sing  of  early  events,  and  have  no  trace  of  allusion  to 
the  age  which  is  said  to  have  produced  them. 

5.  The  large  number  of  Psalms  attributed  to  David  have 
attracted  the  special  attention  of  the  higher  critics.  They  are 
denied  to  him  on  various  grounds.  He  was  a  wicked  man, 
and  hence  incapable  of  waiting  these  praises  to  the  God  of 
righteousness.     He  was  an  iron  warrior  and  statesman,  and 


♦Quoted  by  Orr,  "The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament."  page 

26 


The  Fallacies  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

hence  not  gifted  with  the  emotions  found  in  these  productions. 
He  was  so  busy  with  the  cares  of  conquest  and  administra- 
tion that  he  had  no  leisure  for  Hterary  work.  Finally,  his 
conception  of  God  was  utterly  different  from  that  which 
moved  the  psalmists. 

The  larger  part  of  this  catalogue  of  inabilities  is  mani- 
festly erroneous.  David,  with  some  glaring  faults,  and  with 
a  single  enormous  crime,  for  which  he  was  profoundly  peni- 
tent, was  one  of  the  noblest  of  men.  He  was  indeed  an  iron 
warrior  and  statesman,  but  also  one  of  the  most  emotional  of 
all  great  historic  characters.  He  was  busy,  but  busy  men  not 
seldom  find  relief  in  literary  occupations,  as  Washington,  dur- 
ing the  Revolutionary  War,  poured  forth  a  continual  tide  of 
letters,  and  as  Caesar,  Marcus  Aurelius,  and  Gladstone,  while 
burdened  with  the  cares  of  empire,  composed  immortal  books. 
The  conception  of  God  with  which  David  began  his  career 
was  indeed  narrow  (I.  Sam.  26:  19).  But  did  he  learn  noth- 
ing in  all  his  later  experiences,  and  his  associations  with  holy 
priests  and  prophets?  He  was  certainly  teachable:  did  God 
fail  to  make  use  of  him  in  further  revealing  Himself  to  His 
people?  To  deny  these  Psalms  to  David  on  the  ground  of  his 
limited  views  of  God  in  his  early  life,  is  this  not  to  deny  that 
God  made  successive  revelations  of  Himself  wherever  He 
found  suitable  channels  ?  If,  further,  we  consider  the  unques- 
tioned skill  of  David  in  the  music  of  his  nation  and  his  age 
(i  Sam.  16:14-25),  this  will  constitute  a  presupposition  in 
favor  of  his  interest  in  sacred  song.  If,  finally,  we  consider 
his  personal  career  of  danger  and  deliverance,  this  will  ap- 
pear as  the  natural  means  of  awakening  in  him  the  spirit  of 
varied  religious  poetry.  His  times  were  much  like  the  Eliza- 
bethan period,  which  ministered  unexampled  stimulus  to  the 
English  mind. 

87 


The  Higher  Criticism   and   The  Nezu  Theology 

From  all  this  \\c  may  turn  to  the  singular  verdict  of  Pro- 
fessor Jordan :  "If  a  man  says  he  cannot  see  why  David  could 
not  have  written  Psalms  51  and  139,  you  are  compelled  to 
reply  as  politely  as  possible  that  if  he  did  write  them  then  any 
man  can  write  anything."  So  also  we  may  say,  "as  politely 
as  possible/'  that  if  Shakespeare,  with  his  "small  Latin  and 
less  Greek,"  did  write  his  incomparable  dramas,  "then  any 
man  can  write  anything";  that  if  Dickens,  with  his  mere  ele- 
mentary education,  did  write  his  great  novels,  "then  any  man 
can  write  anything";  and  that  if  Lincoln,  who  had  no  early 
schooling,  did  write  his  Gettysburg  address,  "then  any  man 
can  write  anything." 

SEVENTH     fallacy:     DEUTERONOMY    NOT     WRITTEN     BY     MOSES 

VIL  One  of  the  fixed  points  of  the  higher  criticism  is 
its  theory  of  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy.  In  i  Kings  22  we 
have  the  history  of  the  finding  of  the  book  of  the  law  in  the 
temple,  which  was  being  repaired.  Now  the  higher  critics 
present  this  finding,  not  as  the  discovery  of  an  ancient  docu- 
ment, but  as  the  finding  of  an  entirely  new  document,  which 
had  been  concealed  in  the  temple  in  order  that  it  might  be 
found,  might  be  accepted  as  the  production  of  Moses,  and 
might  produce  an  effect  by  its  assumed  authorship.  It  is  not 
supposed  for  a  moment  that  the  writer  innocently  chose  the 
fictitious  dress  of  Mosaic  authorship  for  merely  literary  pur- 
poses. On  the  contrary,  it  is  steadfastly  maintained  that  he 
intended  to  deceive,  and  that  others  were  with  him  in  the 
plot  to  deceive.  This  statement  of  the  case  leads  me  to  the 
following  reflections : 

I.  According  to  the  theory,  this  was  an  instance  ol 
pious   fraud.     And  the;  fi^ud  must  have  been  prepared  de< 


The  Fallacies  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

liberately.  The  manuscript  must  have  heen  soiled  and  frayed 
by  special  care,  for  it  was  at  once  admitted  to  be  ancient. 
This  supposition  of  deceit  must  always  repel  the  Christian 
believer. 

2.  Our  Lord  draws  from  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  all 
the  three  texts  with  which  He  foils  the  tempter,  Matt.  4:  i-ii, 
Luke  4:  1-14.  It  must  always  shock  the  devout  student  that 
his  Saviour  should  select  His  weapons  from  an  armory 
founded  on  deceit. 

3.  This  may  be  called  an  appeal  to  ignorant  piety,  rather 
than  to  scholarly  criticism.  But  surely  the  moral  argument 
should  have  some  weight  in  scholarly  criticism.  In  the 
sphere  of  religion  moral  impossibilities  are  as  insuperable  as 
physical  and  mental. 

4.  If  we  turn  to  consideration  of  a  literary  kind,  it  is 
to  be  observed  that  the  higher  criticism  runs  counter  here  to 
the  statement  of  the  book  itself  that  ]\Ioses  was  its  author. 

5.  It  runs  counter  to  the  narrative  of  the  finding  of  the 
book,  and  turns  the  finding  of  an  ancient  book  into  the  for- 
gery of  a  new  book. 

6.  It  runs  counter  to  the  judgment  of  all  the  intelligent 
men  of  the  time  who  learned  of  the  discovery.  They  judged 
the  book  to  have  come  down  from  the  Mosaic  age,  and  to  be 
from  the  pen  of  Closes.     We  hear  of  no  dissent  whatever. 

7.  It  seeks  support  in  a  variety  of  reasons,  such  as  style, 
historical  discrepancies,  and  legal  contradictions,  all  of  which 
prove  of  little  substance  when  examined  fairly. 

EIGHTH    fallacy:    THE    PRIESTLY    LFX.ISLATION     NOT    ENACTED 
UNTIL   THE    EXILE 

VIII.  Another  case  of  forgery  is  found  in  the  origin 
of   the   priestly    legislation,   it    we   are   to   believe   the   higher 

89 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

critics.  This  legislation  is  contained  in  a  large  number  of 
passages  scattered  through  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers. 
It  has  to  do  chiefly  with  the  tabernacle  and  its  worship,  with 
the  duties  of  the  priests  and  Levites,  and  with  the  relations 
of  the  people  to  the  institutions  of  religion.  It  is  attributed 
to  Moses  in  scores  of  places.  It  has  a  strong  coloring  of 
the  Mosaic  age  and  of  the  wilderness  life.  It  affirms  the 
existence  of  the  tabernacle,  with  an  orderly  administration 
of  the  ritual  services.  But  this  is  all  imagined,  for  the  legis- 
lation is  a  late  production.  Before  the  exile  there  were  temple 
services  and  a  priesthood,  with  certain  regulations  concern- 
ing them,  either  oral  or  written,  and  use  was  made  of  this 
tradition;  but  as  a  whole  the  legislation  was  enacted  by  such 
men  as  Ezekiel  and  Ezra  during  and  immediately  after  the 
exile,  or  about  444  B.  C.  The  name  of  Moses,  the  fiction 
of  a  tabernacle,  and  the  general  coloring  of  the  Mosaic  age, 
were  given  it  in  order  to  render  it  authoritative  and  to  secure 
the  ready  obedience  of  the  nation.     But  now: 

1.  The  moral  objection  here  is  insuperable.  The  suppo- 
sition of  forgery,  and  of  forgery  so  cunning,  so  elaborate,  and 
so  minute,  is  abhorrent.  If  the  forgery  had  been  invented 
and  executed  by  wicked  men  to  promote  some  scheme  of 
selfishness,  it  would  have  been  less  odious.  But  when  it  is 
presented  to  us  as  the  expedient  of  holy  men,  for  the  advance- 
ment of  the  religion  of  the  God  of  righteousness,  which  after- 
wards blossomed  out  into  Christianity,  we  must  revolt. 

2.  The  theory  gives  us  a  portraiture  of  such  men  as 
Ezekiel  and  Ezra  which  is  utterly  alien  from  all  that  we  know 
of  them.  The  expedient  might  be  worthy  of  the  prophets 
of  Baal  or  of  Chemosh;  it  was  certainly  not  worthy  of  the 
prophets  of  Jehovah,  and  we  dishonor  them  when  we  attribute 
it  to  them  and  place  them  upon  a  low  plane  of  craft  and  cun- 

90 


The  Fallacies  of  the  Higher  Criticism 

ning  of  which   the  records  concerning  them  are  utterly  ig- 
norant. 

3.  The  people  who  returned  from  the  exile  were  among 
the  most  intelligent  and  enterprising  of  the  nation,  else  they 
would  not  have  returned,  and  they  would  not  have  been 
deceived  by  the  sudden  appearance  of  Mosaic  laws  forged  for 
the  occasion  and  never  before  heard  of. 

4.  Many  of  the  regulations  of  this  legislation  are  dras- 
tic. It  subjected  the  priests  and  Levites  to  a  rule  which  must 
have  been  irksome  in  the  extreme,  and  it  would  not  have 
been  lightly  accepted.  We  may  be  certain  that  if  it  had  been 
a  new  thing  fraudulently  ascribed  to  Moses,  these  men  would 
have  detected  the  deceit,  and  would  have  refused  to  be  bound 
by  it.  But  we  do  not  hear  of  any  revolt,  or  even  of  any 
criticism. 

Such  are  some  of  the  fundamental  fallacies  of  the  higher 
criticism.  They  constitute  an  array  of  impossibilities.  I  have 
stated  them  in  their  more  moderate  forms,  that  they  may  be 
seen  and  weighed  without  the  remarkable  extravagances  which 
some  of  their  advocates  indulge.  In  the  very  mildest  interpre- 
tation which  can  be  given  them,  they  are  repugnant  to  the 
Christian  faith. 

NO  MIDDLE  GROUND 

But  might  we  not  accept  a  part  of  this  system  of  thought 
without  going  to  any  hurtful  extreme?  Many  today  are 
seeking  to  do  this.     They  present  to  us  two  diverse  results. 

I.  Some,  who  stand  at  the  beginning  of  the  tide,  find 
themselves  in  a  position  of  doubt.  If  they  are  laymen,  they 
know  not  what  to  believe.  If  they  are  ministers,  they  know 
not  what  to  believe  or  to  teach.     In  either  case,  they  have 

91 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Nczv  Theology 

no  firm  footing,  and  no  Gospel,  except  a  few  platitudes  which 
do  little  harm  and  little  good. 

2.  The  majority  of  those  who  struggle  to  stand  here 
find  it  impossible  to  do  so,  and  give  themselves  up  to  the 
current.  There  is  intellectual  consistency  in  the  lofty  church 
doctrine  of  inspiration.  There  may  be  intellectual  consistency 
in  the  doctrine  that  all  things  have  had  a  natural  origin  and 
history,  under  the  general  providence  of  God,  as  distinguished 
from  His  supernatural  revelation  of  Himself  through  holy 
men,  and  especially  through  His  co-equal  Son,  so  that  the 
Bible  is  as  little  supernatural  as  the  ''Imitation  of  Christ"  or 
the  ''Pilgrim's  Progress."  But  there  is  no  position  of  intellec- 
tual consistency  between  these  two,  and  the  great  mass  of 
those  who  try  to  pause  at  various  points  along  the  descent  are 
swept  down  with  the  current.  The  natural  view  of  the  Scrip- 
tures is  a  sea  which  has  been  rising  higher  for  three-quarters 
of  a  century.  Many  Christians  bid  it  welcome  to  pour  lightly 
over  the  walls  which  the  faith  of  the  church  has  always  set 
up  against  it,  in  the  expectation  that  it  will  prove  a  healthful 
and  helpful  stream.  It  is  already  a  cataract,  uprooting,  de- 
stroying, and  slaying. 


APPENDIX 

Those  who  wish  to  study  these  fallacies  further  are  ad- 
vised to  read  the  following  books : 

ORR.  "The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament," 

and  "The  Bible  Under  Fire." 

M5LLER.  "Are  the  Critics  Right?" 

SCHMAUK.  "The   Negative   Criticism  and   the   Old 

Testament." 

CROSLEGH.  "The  Bible  in  the  Light  of  Today." 

92 


The  Fallacies  sf  the  Higher  Criticism 


VARIOUS  AUTHORS. 
GREEN. 

CHAMBERS. 
BLOMFIELD. 

RAVEN. 
SAYCE. 


"Lex  Mosaica." 

"The    Higher    Criticism   of  the    Penta- 
teuch." 
"Moses   and    His    Recent    Critics." 
"The    Old    Testament    and    the     New 

Criticism." 
"Old    Testament    Introduction." 
'The  Early  History  of  the   Hebrev/s." 


93 


CHAPTER  IV 
CHRIST  AND  CRITICISM 

BY  SIR  ROBERT  ANDERSON,  K.   C.   B.,  LL.  D. 

AUTHOR    OF   "the   BIBLE   AND    MODERN    CRITICISM,"    ETC.,    FTC, 

LONDON,   ENGLAND 

In  his  "Founders  of  Old  Testament  Criticism"  Professor 
Cheyne  of  Oxford  gives  the  foremost  place  to  Eichhorn.  He 
hails  him,  in  fact,  as  the  founder  of  the  cult.  And  according 
to  this  same  authority,  what  led  Eichhorn  to  enter  on  his  task 
was  "his  hope  to  contribute  to  the  winning  back  of  the  edu- 
cated classes  to  religion."  The  rationalism  of  Germany  at 
the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  would  accept  the  Bible 
only  on  the  terms  of  bringing  it  down  to  the  level  of  a  human 
book,  and  the  problem  which  had  to  be  solved  was  to  get  rid 
of  the  element  of  miracle  which  pervades  it.  Working  on  the 
labors  of  his  predecessors,  Eichhorn  achieved  this  to  his  own 
satisfaction  by  appealing  to  the  oriental  habit  of  thought,  which 
seizes  upon  ultimate  causes  and  ignores  intermediate  proc- 
esses. This  commended  itself  on  two  grounds.  It  had  an 
undoubted  element  of  truth,  and  it  was  consistent  with  rever- 
ence for  Holy  Scripture.  For  of  the  founder  of  the  "Higher 
Criticism"  it  was  said,  what  cannot  be  said  of  any  of  his 
successors  that  "faith  in  that  which  is  holy,  even  in  the  mir- 
acles of  the  Bible,  was  never  shattered  by  Eichhorn  in  any 
youthful  mind." 

94 


Christ  and  Criticism 

In  the  view  of  his  successors,  however,  Eichhorn's  hypo- 
thesis was  open  to  the  fatal  objection  that  it  was  altogether 
inadequate.  So  the  next  generation  of  critics  adopted  the 
more  drastic  theory  that  the  Mosaic  books  were  "mosaic"  in 
the  sense  that  they  were  literary  forgeries  of  a  late  date, 
composed  of  materials  supplied  by  ancient  documents  and 
the  myths  and  legends  of  the  Hebrew  race.  And  though  this 
theory  has  been  modified  from  time  to  time  during  the  last 
century,  it  remains  substantially  the  "critical"  view  of  the 
Pentateuch.  But  it  is  open  to  two  main  objections,  either  of 
which  would  be  fatal.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  evidence. 
And  it  directly  challenges  the  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  as  a  teacher;  for  one  of  the  few  undisputed  facts  in 
this  controversy  is  that  our  Lord  accredited  the  books  of  Moses 
as  having  divine  authority. 

THE  TRUE  AND  THE  COUNTERFEIT 

It  may -be  well  to  deal  first  with  the  least  important  of 
these  objections.  And  here  we  must  distinguish  between  the 
true  Higher  Criticism  and  its  counterfeit.  The  rationalistic 
"Higher  Criticism,"  when  putting  the  Pentateuch  upon  its 
trial,  began  with  the  verdict  and  then  cast  about  to  find  the 
evidence ;  whereas,  true  criticism  enters  upon  its  inquiries  with 
an  open  mind  and  pursues  them  without  prejudice.  The  dif- 
ference may  be  aptly  illustrated  by  the  position  assumed  by 
a  typical  French  judge  and  by  an  ideal  English  judge  in  a 
criminal  trial.  The  one  aims  at  convicting  the  accused,  the 
other  at  elucidating  the  truth.  "The  proper  function  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  is  to  determine  the  origin,  date,  and  liter- 
ary structure  of  an  ancient  writing."  This  is  Professor 
Driver's  description  of  true  criticism.     But  the  aim  of  the 

95 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

counterfeit  is  to  disprove  the  genuineness  of  the  ancient  writ- 
ings. The  justice  of  this  statement  is  established  by  the  fact 
that  Hebraists  and  theologians  of  the  highest  eminence,  whose 
investigation  of  the  Pentateuch  problem  has  convinced  tliem 
of  the  genuineness  of  the  books,  are  not  recognized  at  all. 

In  Britain,  at  least — and  I  am  not  competent  to  speak  of 
Germany  or  America — no  theologian  of  the  first  rank  has 
adopted  their  ''assured  results.*'  But  the  judgment  of  such 
men  as  Pusey,  Lightfoot  and  Salmon,  not  to  speak  of  men 
who  are  still  with  us,  they  contemptuously  ignore;  for  the 
rationalistic  Pligher  Critic  is  not  one  who  investigates  the 
evidence,  but  one  who  accepts  the  verdict. 

THE   PHILOLOGICAL    INQUIRY 

If,  as  its  apostles  sometimes  urge,  the  Higher  Criticism  is 
a  purely  philological  inquiry,  two  obvious  conclusions  follow. 
The  first  is  that  its  verdict  must  be  in  favor  of  the  Mosaic 
books ;  for  each  of  the  books  contains  peculiar  words  suited  to 
the  time  and  circumstances  to  which  it  is  traditionally  assigned. 
This  is  admitted,  and  the  critics  attribute  the  presence  of 
such  words  to  the  Jesuitical  skill  of  the  priestly  forgers.  But 
this  only  lends  weight  to  the  further  conclusion  that  Higher 
Criticism  is  wholly  incompetent  to  deal  with  the  main  issue  on 
which  it  claims  to  adjudicate.  For  the  genuineness  of  the 
Pentateuch  must  be  decided  on  the  same  principles  on  which 
the  genuineness  of  ancient  documents  is  dealt  with  in  our 
courts  of  justice.  And  the  language  of  the  documents  is  only 
one  part  of  the  needed  evidence,  and  not  the  most  important 
part.  And  fitness  for  dealing  with  evidence  depends  upon 
qualities  to  which  Hebraists,  as  such,  have  no  special  claim. 
Indeed,  their  writings  afford  si.q-nal  proofs  of  their  unfitness 

96 


Christ  and  Criticism 

for  inquiries  which  they  insist  on  regarding  as  their  special 
preserve. 

Take,  for  example,  Professor  Driver's  grave  assertion 
that  the  presence  of  two  Greek  words  in  Daniel  (they  are 
the  names  of  musical  instruments)  demand  a  date  for  the 
book  subsequent  to  the  Greek  conquest.  It  has  been  estab- 
lished by  Professor  Sayce  and  others  that  the  intercourse  be- 
tween Babylon  and  Greece  in,  and  before,  the  days  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar would  amply  account  for  the  presence  in  the  Chal- 
dean capital  of  musical  instruments  with  Greek  names.  And 
Colonel  Conder,  moreover, — a  very  high  authority — considers 
the  words  to  be  Akkadian,  and  not  Greek  at  all!  But  apart 
from  all  this,  we  can  imagine  the  reception  that  would  be 
given  to  such  a  statement  by  any  competent  tribunal.  The 
story  bears  repeating — it  is  a  record  of  facts — that  at  a  church 
bazaar  in  Lincoln  some  years  ago,  the  alarm  was  raised 
that  pickpockets  were  at  work,  and  two  ladies  had  lost  their 
purses.  The  empty  purses  were  afterwards  found  in  the 
pocket  of  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese !  On  the  evidence  of  the 
two  purses  the  Bishop  should  be  convicted  as  a  thief,  and 
on  the  evidence  of  the  two  words  the  book  of  Daniel  should 
be  convicted  as  a  forgery ! 

HISTORICAL    BLUNDER 

Here  is  another  typical  item  in  the  Critics'  indictment  of 
Daniel.  The  book  opens  by  recording  Nebuchadnezzar's  siege 
of  Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  a  statement  the 
correctness  of  which  is  confirmed  by  history,  sacred  and 
secular.  Berosus,  the  Chaldean  historian,  tells  us  that  during 
this  expedition  Nebuchadnezzar  received  tidings  of  his 
father's  death,  and  that,  committing  to  others  the  care  of  his 

97 


The  I  Uglier  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

army  and  of  his  Jewish  and  other  prisoners,  "he  himself 
hastened  home  across  the  desert."  But  the  German  skeptics, 
having  decided  that  Daniel  was  a  forgery,  had  to  find  evi- 
dence to  support  their  verdict.  And  so  they  made  the  bril- 
liant discovery  that  Berosus  was  here  referring  to  the  expe- 
dition of  the  following  year,  when  Nebuchadnezzar  won  the 
battle  of  Carchemish  against  the  army  of  the  king  of  Egypt, 
and  that  he  had  not  at  that  time  invaded  Judea  at  all.  But 
Carchemish  is  on  the  Euphrates,  and  the  idea  of  "hastening 
home"  from  there  to  Babylon  across  the  desert  is  worthy  of  a 
schoolboy's  essay !  That  he  crossed  the  desert  is  proof  that 
he  set  out  from  Judea;  and  his  Jewish  captives  were,  of 
course,  Daniel  and  his  companion  princes.  His  invasion  of 
Judea  took  place  before  his  accession,  in  Jehoiakam's  third 
year,  whereas  the  battle  of  Carchemish  was  fought  after  his 
accession,  in  the  king  of  Judah's  fourth  year,  as  the  biblical 
books  record.  But  this  grotesque  blunder  of  Bertholdt's 
"Book  of  Daniel"  in  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century 
is  gravely  reproduced  in  Professor  Driver's  "Book  of  Dan- 
iel" at  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century. 

CRITICAL   PROFANITY 

But  to  return  to  Moses.  According  to  "the  critical  hy- 
pothesis," the  books  of  the  Pentateuch  are  literary  forgeries 
of  the  Exilic  Era,  the  work  of  the  Jerusalem  priests  of  those 
evil  days.  From  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  we  know  that  those 
men  were  profane  apostates;  and  if  "the  critical  hypothesis" 
be  true,  they  were  infinitely  worse  than  even  the  prophet's 
inspired  denunciations  of  them  indicate.  For  no  eighteenth 
century  atheist  ever  sank  to  a  lower  depth  of  profanity  than 
is  displayed  by  their  use  of  the  Sacred  Name.     In  the  preface 

98 


Christ  and  Criticism 

to  his  "Darkness  and  Dawn/'  Dean  Farrar  claims  that  he 
"never  touches  the  early  preachers  of  Christianity  with  the 
finger  of  fiction."  When  his  story  makes  Apostles  speak,  he 
has  "confined  their  words  to  the  words  of  a  revelation."  But 
ex.  hyp.,  the  authors  of  the  Pentateuch  "touched  with  the 
finger  of  fiction"  not  only  the  holy  men  of  the  ancient  days, 
but  their  Jehovah  God.  "Jehovah  spake  unto  Moses,  say- 
ing." This  and  kindred  formulas  are  repeated  times  with- 
out number  in  the  Mosaic  books.  If  this  be  romance,  a 
lower  type  of  profanity  is  inconceivable,  unless  it  be  that 
of  the  man  v.'ho  fails  to  be  shocked  and  revolted  by  it. 

But  no;  facts  prove  that  this  judgment  is  unjust.  For 
men  of  unfeigned  piety  and  deep  reverence  for  divine  things 
can  be  so  blinded  by  the  superstitions  of  "religion"  that  the 
imprimatur  of  the  church  enables  them  to  regard  these  dis- 
credited books  as  Holy  Scripture.  As  critics  they  brand  the 
Pentateuch  as  a  tissue  of  myth  and  legend  and  fraud,  but  as 
religionists  they  assure  us  that  this  "implies  no  denial  of  its 
inspiration  or  disparagement  of  its  contents."* 

ERRORS    REFUTED    BY    FACTS 

In  controversy  it  is  of  the  greatest  importance  to  allow 
opponents  to  state  their  position  in  their  own  words;  and 
here  is  Professor  Driver's  statement  of  the  case  against  the 
Books  of  Moses: 

"We  can  only  argfue  on  grounds  of  probability  derived 
from  our  view  of  the  progress  of  the  art  of  writing,  or  of 
literary  composition,  or  of  the  rise  and  growth  of  the  pro- 
phetic tone  and  feeling  in  ancient  Israel,  or  of  the  period  at 


*"The     Higher     Criticism:     Three    Papers,"     by     Professors 
Drirer  and    Kirkpatrick. 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

which  the  traditions  contained  in  the  narratives  might  have 
taken  shape,  or  of  the  probability  that  they  would  have  been 
written  down  before  the  impetus  given  to  culture  by  the 
monarchy  had  taken  effect,  and  similar  considerations,  for 
estimating  most  of  which,  though  plausible  arguments  on  one 
side  or  the  other  may  be  advanced,  a  standard  on  which  we 
can  confidently  rely  scarcely  admits  of  being  fixed/*  ("Intro- 
duction," 6th  ed.,  page  123.) 

This  modest  reference  to  "literary  composition"  and  "the 
art  of  writing"  is  characteristic.  It  is  intended  to  gloss  over 
the  abandonment  of  one  of  the  chief  points  in  the  original 
attack.  Had  "Driver's  Introduction"  appeared  twenty  years 
earlier,  the  assumption  that  such  a  literature  as  the  Penta- 
teuch could  belong  to  the  age  of  Moses  would  doubtless  have 
been  branded  as  an  anachronism.  For  one  of  the  main 
grounds  on  which  the  books  were  assigned  to  the  later  days 
of  the  monarchy  was  that  the  Hebrews  of  six  centuries  earlier 
were  an  illiterate  people.  And  after  that  error  had  been 
refuted  by  archaeological  discoveries,  it  was  still  maintained 
that  a  code  of  laws  so  advanced,  and  so  elaborate,  as  that 
of  Moses  could  not  have  originated  in  such  an  age.  This 
figment,  however,  was  in  its  turn  exploded,  when  the  spade 
of  the  explorer  brought  to  light  the  now  famous  Code  of 
Khammurabi,  the  Amraphel  of  Genesis,  who  was  king  of 
Babylon  in  the  time  of  Abraham. 

Instead,  however,  of  donning  the  white  sheet  when  con- 
fronted by  this  new  witness,  the  critics,  with  great  effrontery, 
pointed  to  the  newly-found  Code  as  the  original  of  the  laws  of 
Sinai.  Such  a  conclusion  is  natural  on  the  part  of  men  who 
treat  the  Pentateuch  as  merely  human.  But  the  critics  can- 
not have  it  both  ways.  The  Moses  who  copied  Khammurabi 
m«st  have  been  the  real  Moses  of  the  Exodus,  and  not  the 

T0<1 


Christ  and  Criticism  ' 

mythical  ivloscs  of  the  Exile,  who  wrote  long  centuries  after 
Khammurabi  had  been  forgotten  1 

AN    INCREDIBLE   THEORY 

The  evidence  of  the  Khammurabi  Code  refutes  an  im- 
portant count  in  the  critics'  indictment  of  the  Pentateuch; 
but  we  can  call  another  witness  whose  testimony  demolishes 
their  whole  case.  The  Pentateuch,  as  we  all  know,  and  the 
Pentateuch  alone,  constitutes  the  Bible  of  the  Samaritans. 
Who,  then,  were  the  Samaritans?  And  how  and  when  did 
they  obtain  the  Pentateuch?  Here  again  the  critics  shall 
speak  for  themselves.  Among  the  distinguished  men  who 
have  championed  their  crusade  in  Britain  there  has  been  none 
more  esteemed,  none  more  scholarly,  than  the  late  Professor 
Robertson  Smith;  and  here  is  an  extract  from  his  "Samari- 
tans" article  in  the  ''Encyclopedia  Britannica": 

"They  (the  Samaritans)  regard  themselves  as  Israelites, 
descendants  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  claim  to  possess  the  ortho- 
dox religion  of  Moses  *  *  *  The  priestly  law,  which  is 
throughout  based  on  the  practice  of  the  priests  in  Jerusalem 
before  the  Captivity,  was  reduced  to  form  after  the  Exile,  and 
was  published  by  Ezra  as  the  law  of  the  rebuilt  temple  cf 
Zion.  The  Samaritans  must,  therefore,  have  derived  their 
Pentateuch  from  the  Jew^s  after  Ezra's  reforms."  And  in 
the  same  paragraph  he  says  that,  according  to  the  contention 
of  the  Samaritans,  "not  only  the  temple  of  Zion,  but  the 
earlier  temple  of  Shiloh  and  the  priesthood  of  Eli,  were  schis- 
matical."  And  yet,  as  he  goes  on  to  say,  "the  Samaritan 
religion  w^as  built  on  the  Pentateuch  alone." 

Now  mark  what  this  implies.  We  know  something  of 
racial  bitterness.     We  know  more,  unfortunately,  of  the  fierce 

lOI 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Nevj  Theology 

bitterness  of  religious  strife.  And  both  these  elements  com- 
bined to  alienate  the  Samaritans  from  the  Jews.  But  more 
than  this,  in  the  post-exilic  period  distrust  and  dislike  were 
turned  to  intense  hatred — "abhorrence"  is  Robertson  Smith's 
word — by  the  sternness  and  contempt  with  which  the  Jews 
spurned  their  proffered  help  in  the  work  of  reconstruction  at 
Jerusalem,  and  refused  to  acknowledge  them  in  any  way. 
And  yet  we  are  asked  to  believe  that,  at  this  very  time  and  in 
these  very  circumstances,  the  Samaritans,  while  hating  the 
Jews  much  as  Orangemen  hate  the  Jesuits,  and  denouncing 
the  whole  Jewish  cult  as  schismatical,  not  only  accepted  these 
Jewish  books  relating  to  that  cult  as  the  "service  books"  of 
their  own  ritual,  but  adopted  them  as  their  "Bible,"  to  the 
exclusion  even  of  the  writings  of  their  own  Israelite  prophets, 
and  the  venerated  and  sacred  books  which  record  the  history 
of  their  kings.  In  the  whole  range  of  controversy,  religious 
or  secular,  was  there  ever  propounded  a  theory  more  utterly 
incredible  and  preposterous! 

ANOTHER    PREPOSTEROUS    POSITION 

No  less  preposterous  are  the  grounds  on  which  this  con- 
clusion is  commended  to  us.  Here  is  a  statement  of  them, 
quoted  from  the  standard  text-book  of  the  cult,  Hasting's 
*'Bible  Dictionary": 

"There  is  at  least  one  valid  ground  for  the  conclusion 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  first  accepted  by  the  Samaritans  after 
the  Exile.  Why  was  their  request  to  be  allowed  to  take 
part  in  the  building  of  the  second  temple  refused  by  the  heads 
of  the  Jerusalem  community?  Very  probably  because  the 
Jews  were  aware  that  the  Samaritans  did  not  as  yet  possess 
the  Law-Book.     It  is  hard  to  suppose  that  otherwise  they 

102 


Christ  and   Criticism 

would  have  met  with  this  refusal.  Further,  anyone  who, 
like  the  present  writer,  regards  the  modern  criticism  of  the 
Pentateuch  as  essentially  correct,  has  a  second  decisive  reason 
for  adopting  the  above  view."  (Professor  Konig's  article, 
''Samaritan   Pentateuch,"  page  68.) 

Here  are  two  "decisive  reasons"  for  holding  that  "the 
Pentateuch  was  first  accepted  by  the  Samaritans  after  the 
Exile."  First,  because  "very  probably"  it  was  because  they 
had  not  those  forged  books  that  the  Jews  spurned  their  help; 
and  so  they  went  heme  and  adopted  the  forged  books  as  their 
Bible!  And,  secondly,  because  criticism  has  proved  that  the 
books  were  not  in  existence  till  then.  To  characterize  the 
writings  of  these  scholars  as  they  deserve  is  not  a  grateful 
task,  but  the  time  has  come  to  throw  off  reserve,  when  such 
drivel  as  this  is  gravely  put  forward  to  induce  us  to  tear 
from  our  Bible  the  Holy  Scriptures  on  which  our  Divine 
Lord  based  His  claims  to  Messiahship. 

THE    IDEA   OF    SACRIFICE    A   REVELATION 

The  refutation  of  the  Higher  Criticism  does  not  prove 
that  the  Pentateuch  is  inspired  of  God.  The  writer  who 
would  set  himself  to  establish  such  a  thesis  as  that  within  the 
limits  of  a  Review  Article  might  well  be  admired  for  his 
enthusiasm  and  dr.rir  g,  but  certainly  not  for  his  modesty  or 
discretion.  Neither  ( oes  it  decide  questions  which  lie  within 
the  legitimate  province  of  the  true  Higher  Criticism,  as 
ex.  gr.,  the  authors '.ip  of  Genesis.  It  is  incredible  that  for 
the  thousands  of  ye::r3  that  elapsed  before  the  days  of  Moses, 
God  left  His  people  o  i  earth  without  a  revelation.  It  is  plain, 
moreover,  that  mar  /  of  the  ordinances  divinely  entrusted  to 
Moses   were   but   a   /enewal   of  an   earlier   revelation.    The 

103 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  Niw  Theology 

religion  of  Babylon  is  clear  evidence  of  such  a  primeval  revel- 
ation. How  else  can  the  universality  of  sacrifice  be  accounted 
for?  Could  such  a  practice  have  originated  in  a  human 
brain  ? 

If  some  demented  creature  conceived  the  idea  that  killing 
a  beast  before  his  enemy's  door  would  propitiate  him,  his 
neighbors  would  no  doubt  have  suppressed  him.  And  if  he 
evolved  the  belief  that  his  god  would  be  appeased  by  such  an 
offensive  practice,  he  must  have  supposed  his  god  to  be  as 
mad  as  himself.  The  fact  that  sacrifice  prevailed  among  all 
races  can  be  explained  only  by  a  primeval  revelation.  And 
the  Bible  student  will  recognize  that  God  thus  sought  to 
impress  on  men  that  death  was  the  penalty  of  sin,  and  to 
lead  them  to  look  forward  to  a  great  blood  shedding  that 
would  bring  life  and  blessing  to  mankind.  But  Babylon  was 
to  the  ancient  world  what  Rome  has  been  to  Christendom. 
It  corrupted  every  divine  ordinance  and  truth,  and  perpetu- 
ated them  as  thus  corrupted.  And  in  the  Pentateuch  we 
have  the  divine  re-issue  of  the  true  cult.  The  figment  that 
the  debased  and  corrupt  version  was  the  original  may  satisfy 
some  professors  of  Hebrew,  but  no  one  who  has  any  prac- 
tical knowledge  of  human  nature  would  entertain  it. 

INSUFFICIENT   EVIDENCE 

At  this  Stage,  however,  what  concerns  us  is  not  the 
divine  authority  of  the  books,  but  the  human  error  and  folly 
of  the  critical  attack  upon  them.  The  only  historical  basis 
of  that  attack  is  the  fact  that  in  the  revival  under  Josiah,  "the 
book  of  the  law''  was  found  in  the  temple  by  Hilkiah,  the  high 
priest,  to  whom  the  young  king  entrusted  the  duty  of  cleans- 
ing and  renovating  the  long  neglected  shrine.     A  most  natural 

104 


Christ  and  Criticism 

discovery  it  was,  seeing  that  Moses  had  in  express  terms 
commanded  that  it  should  be  kept  there  (2  Kings  22:  8;  Deut. 
31 :  26).  But  according  to  the  critics,  the  whole  business  was 
a  detestable  trick  of  the  priests.  For  they  it  was  who  forged 
the  books  and  invented  the  command,  and  then  hid  the  product 
of  their  infamous  work  where  they  knew  it  would  be  found. 
And  apart  from  this,  the  only  foundation  for  "the  assured 
results  of  modern  criticism,"  as  they  themselves  acknowledge, 
consists  of  "grounds  of  probability"  and  "plausible  argu- 
ments"! In  no  civilized  country  would  an  habitual  criminal 
be  convicted  of  petty  larceny  on  such  evidence  as  this;  and 
yet  it  is  on  these  grounds  that  we  are  called  upon  to  give 
up  the  sacred  books  which  our  Divine  Lord  accredited  as  "the 
Word  of  God"  and  made  the  basis  of  His  doctrinal  teaching, 

CHRIST    OR    CRITICISM? 

And  this  brings  us  to  the  second,  and  incomparably  the 
graver,  objection  to  "the  assured  results  of  modern  criticism." 
That  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  identified  Himself  with  the  He- 
brew Scriptures,  and  in  a  very  special  way  with  the  Books  of 
Moses,  no  one  disputes.  And  this  being  so,  we  must  make 
choice  between  Christ  and  Criticism.  For  if  "the  critical  hy- 
pothesis" of  the  Pentateuch  be  sustained,  the  conclusion  is 
seemingly  inevitable,  either  that  He  was  not  divine,  or  that 
the  records  of  His  teaching  are  untrustworthy. 

Which  alternative  shall  we  adopt?  If  the  second,  then 
every  claim  to  inspiration  must  be  abandoned,  and  agnosticism 
must  supplant  faith  in  the  case  of  every  fearless  thinker.  In- 
spiration is  far  too  great  a  question  for  incidental  treatment 
here;  but  two  remarks  with  respect  to  it  may  not  be  inoppor- 
tune.    Behind  the  frauds  of  Spiritualism  there  lies  the  fact, 

105 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

attested  by  men  of  high  character,  some  of  whom  are  emi- 
nent as  scientists  and  scholars,  that  definite  communications 
are  received  in  precise  words  from  the  world  of  spirits.*  And 
this  being  so,  to  deny  that  the  Spirit  of  God  could  thus  com- 
municate truth  to  men,  or,  in  other  words,  to  reject  verbal 
inspiration  on  a  priori  grounds,  betrays  the  stupidity  of  sys- 
tematized unbelief.  And,  secondly,  it  is  amazing  that  any 
one  who  regards  the  coming  of  Christ  as  God's  supreme  revel- 
ation of  Himself  can  imagine  that  (to  put  it  on  no  higher 
ground  than  "Providence")  the  Divine  Spirit  could  fail  to 
ensure  that  mankind  should  have  a  trustworthy  and  true 
record  of  His  mission  and  His  teaching. 

A   MORE  HOPELESS  DILEMMA 

But  if  the  Gospel  narrative  be  authentic,  we  are  driven 
back  upon  the  alternative  that  He  of  whom  they  speak  could 
not  be  divine.  "Not  so,"  the  critics  protest,  "for  did  He  not 
Himself  confess  His  ignorance?  And  is  not  this  explained 
by  the  Apostle's  statement  that  in  His  humiliation  He  emptied 
Himself  of  His  Deity?"  And  the  inference  drawn  from  this 
(to  quote  the  standard  text-book  of  the  cult)  is  that  the  Lord 
of  Glory  "held  the  current  Jewish  notions  respecting  the 
divine  authority  and  revelation  of  the  Old  Testament."  But 
even  if  this  conclusion — as  portentous  as  it  is  profane — could 
be  established,  instead  of  aflfording  an  escape  from  the  di- 
lemma in  which  the  Higher  Criticism  involves  its  votaries,  it 
would  only  serve  to  make  that  dilemma  more  hopeless  and 
more  terrible.  For  what  chiefly  concerns  us  is  not  that,  ex. 
hyp.,  the   Lord's   doctrinal  teaching  was   false,   but  that   in 


♦The   fact    that,    as    the    Christian   believes,    these    spirits    are 
demons  who  personate  the  dead,  does  not  affect  the  argument. 

Io6 


Christ  and  Criticism 

unequivocal  terms,  and  with  extreme  solemnity,  He  declared 
again  and  again  that  His  teaching  was  not  His  own  but  His 
Father's,  and  that  the  very  words  in  which  He  conveyed  it 
were  God-given. 

A  few  years  ago  the  devout  were  distressed  by  the  pro- 
ceedings of  a  certain  Chicago  "prophet,"  who  claimed  divine 
authority  for  his  lucubrations.  Kindly  disposed  people,  re- 
jecting a  severer  estimate  of  the  man  and  his  platform  utter- 
ances, regarded  him  merely  as  a  profane  fool.  Shall  the 
critics  betray  us  into  forming  a  similarly  indulgent  estimate 
Qi _    My  pen  refuses  to  complete  the  sentence ! 

And  will  it  be  believed  that  the  only  scriptural  basis 
offered  us  for  this  astounding  position  is  a  verse  in  one  of  the 
Gospels  and  a  word  in  one  of  the  Epistles !  Passing  strange 
it  is  that  men  who  handle  Holy  Scripture  with  such  freedom 
when  it  conflicts  with  their  "assured  results"  should  attach 
such  enormous  importance  to  an  isolated  verse  or  a  single 
word,  when  it  can  be  misused  to  support  them.  The  verse  is 
Mark  13:32,  where  the  Lord  says,  with  reference  to  His 
coming  again:  "Of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  one;  no, 
not  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but 
the  Father."  But  this  follows  immediately  upon  the  words : 
"Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  My  words  shall 
not  pass  away." 

THE  WORDS  OF  GOD 

The  Lord's  words  were  not  "inspired";  they  were  the 
words  of  God  in  a  still  higher  sense.  "The  people  were 
astonished  at  His  teaching,"  we  are  told,  "for  He  taught 
them  as  one  having  exoiisia,"  The  word  occurs  again  in  Acts 
1 : 7,  where  He  says  that  times  and  seasons  "the  Father  hath 
put  in  His  own  ^xousia."    And  this  is  explained  by  Phil. 

107 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

2: 6,  7:  "He  counted  it  not  a  prize  (or  a  thing  to  be  grasped) 
to  be  on  an  equality  with  God,  but  emptied  Himself" — tlie 
word  on  which  the  kenosis  theory  of  the  critics  depends. 
And  He  not  only  stripped  Himself  of  His  glory  as  God ;  He 
gave  up  His  liberty  as  a  man.  For  He  never  spoke  His  own 
words,  but  only  the  words  which  the  Father  gave  Him  to 
speak.  And  this  was  the  limitation  of  His  "authority";  so 
that,  beyond  what  the  Father  gave  Him  to  speak,  He  knew 
nothing  and  was  silent. 

But  when  He  spoke,  "He  taught  tLem  as  one  who  had 
authority,  and  not  as  their  scribes."  From  their  scribes  they 
were  used  to  receive  definite  teaching,  but  it  was  teaching 
based  on  "the  law  and  the  prophets."  But  here  was  One  who 
stood  apart  and  taught  them  from  a  wholly  different  plane. 
"For,"  He  declared,  "I  spake  not  from  Myself ;  but  the  Father 
which  sent  Me,  He  hath  given  Me  a  commandment  what  I 
should  say  and  what  I  should  speak.  *  *  *  The  things, 
therefore,  which  I  speak,  even  as  the  Father  hath  said  unto 
Me,  so  I  speak"  (John  12:49,  50,  R.  V.). 

And  let  us  not  forget  that  it  was  not  merely  the  sub- 
stance of  His  teaching  that  was  divine,  but  the  very  language 
in  which  it  was  conveyed.  So  that  in  His  prayer  on  the  night 
of  the  betrayal  He  could  say,  not  only  "I  have  given  them 
Thy  word,''  but  "I  have  given  them  the  words  which  Thou 
gavest  Me."*  His  words,  therefore,  about  Moses  and  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  were  not,  as  the  critics,  with  such  daring 
and  seeming  profanity,  maintain,  the  lucubrations  of  a  super- 
stitious and  ignorant  Jew;  they  were  the  words  of  God,  and 
conveyed  truth  that  was  divine  and  eternal. 

When   in   the   dark   days   of  the   Exile,   God   needed    a 


♦Both  the  Aoyos  and  the  prj/xara  John  17:  8,  14;  as  again  in  Chap. 
4: 10,  24, 

108 


Chmt  and  Criticisjn 

prophet  who  would  speak  only  as  He  gave  him  words,  He 
struck  Ezekiel  dumb.  Two  judgments  already  rested  on  that 
people — the  seventy  years'  Servitude  to  Babylon,  and  then 
the  Captivity — and  they  were  warned  that  continued  impeni- 
tence would  bring  on  them  the  still  more  terrible  judgment 
of  the  seventy  years'  desolations.  And  till  that  last  judg- 
ment fell,  Ezekiel  remained  dumb  (Ezek.  3:26;  24:27;  33: 
22).  But  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  needed  no  such  discipline. 
He  came  to  do  the  Father's  will,  and  no  words  ever  passed 
His  lips  save  the  words  given  Him  to  speak. 

In  this  connection,  moreover,  two  facts  which  are 
strangely  overlooked  claim  prominent  notice.  The  first  is 
that  in  Mark  13  the  antithesis  is  not  at  all  between  man  and 
God,  but  between  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Father.  And  the 
second  is  that  He  had  been  re-invested  with  all  that,  accord- 
ing to  Phil.  2,  He  laid  aside  in  coming  into  the  world.  "All 
things  have  been  delivered  unto  Me  of  My  Father,"  He  de- 
clared; and  this  at  a  time  when  the  proofs  that  "He  was 
despised  and  rejected  of  men"  were  pressing  on  Him.  His 
reassuming  the  glory  awaited  His  return  to  heaven,  but  here 
on  earth  the  all  things  were  already  His  (Matt.  11 127). 

AFTER  THE  KENOSIS 

The  foregoing  is  surely  an  adequate  reply  to  the  kenosis 
figment  of  the  critics;  but  if  any  should  still  doubt  or  cavil, 
there  is  another  answer  which  is  complete  and  crushing. 
Whatever  may  have  been  the  limitations  under  which  He 
rested  during  His  ministry  on  earth,  He  was  released  from 
them  when  He  rose  from  the  dead.  And  it  was  in  His  post- 
resurrection  teaching  that  He  gave  the  fullest  and  clearest 
testimony  to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.     Then  it  was  that,  "be- 

109 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

ginning  at  Moses,  and  all  the  prophets,  He  expounded  unto 
them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning  Himself." 
And  again,  confirming  all  His  previous  teaching  about  those 
Scriptures,  "He  said  unto  them,  These  are  the  words  which  I 
spake  unto  you  while  I  was  yet  with  you,  that  all  things  must 
be  fulfilled  which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in 
the  prophets,  and  in  the  psalms,  concerning  Me." 

And  the  record  adds :  "Then  opened  He  their  mind  that 
they  might  understand  the  Scriptures/'  And  the  rest  of  the 
New  Testament  is  the  fruit  of  that  ministry,  enlarged  and 
unfolded  by  the  Holy  Spirit  given  to  lead  them  into  all  truth. 
And  in  every  part  of  the  New  Testament  the  Divine  author- 
ity of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  especially  of  the  Books  of 
Moses,  is  either  taught  or  assumed. 

THE  VITAL   ISSUE 

Certain  it  is,  then,  that  the  vital  issue  in  this  controversy 
is  not  the  value  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  the  Deity  of  Christ. 
And  yet  the  present  article  does  not  pretend  to  deal  with  the 
truth  of  the  Deity.  Its  humble  aim  is  not  even  to  establish 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  but  merely  to  discredit  the 
critical  attack  upon  them  by  exposing  its  real  character  and 
its  utter  feebleness.  The  writer's  method,  therefore,  has  been 
mainly  destructive  criticism,  the  critics'  favorite  weapon  being 
thus  turned  against  themselves. 

A  DEMAND  FOR  CORRECT  STATEMENT 

One  cannot  but  feel  distress  at  having  to  accord  such 
treatment  to  certain  distinguished  men  whose  reverence  for 
divine  things  is  beyond  reproach.     A  like  distress  is  felt  at 

no 


Christ  and  Criticism 

times  by  those  who  have  experience  in  deaHng  with  sedition, 
or  in  suppressing  riots.  But  when  men  who  are  entitled  to 
consideration  and  respect  thrust  themselves  into  "the  line  of 
fire,"  they  must  take  the  consequences.  These  distinguished 
men  will  not  fail  to  receive  to  the  full  the  deference  to  which 
they  are  entitled,  if  only  they  will  dissociate  themselves  from 
the  dishonest  claptrap  of  this  crusade  ("the  assured  results  of 
modern  criticism";  "all  scholars  are  with  us";  and  so  on — 
bluster  and  falsehood  by  which  the  weak  and  ignorant  are 
browbeaten  or  deceived)  and  acknowledge  that  their  "assured 
results"  are  mere  hypotheses,  repudiated  by  Hebraists  and 
theologians  as  competent  and  eminent  as  themselves. 


THINGS    TO    FEAR 

The  effects  of  this  "Higher  Criticism"  are  extremely 
grave.  For  it  has  dethroned  the  Bible  in  the  home,  and  the 
good,  old  practice  of  "family  worship"  is  rapidly  dying  out. 
And  great  national  interests  also  are  involved.  For  who  can 
doubt  that  the  prosperity  and  power  of  the  Protestant  nations 
of  the  world  are  due  to  the  influence  of  the  Bible  upon  char- 
acter and  conduct?  Races  of  men  who  for  generations  have 
been  taught  to  think  for  themselves  in  matters  of  the  highest 
moment  will  naturally  excel  in  every  sphere  of  effort  or  of 
enterprise.  And  more  than  this,  no  one  who  is  trained  in  the 
fear  of  God  will  fail  in  his  duty  to  his  neighbor,  but  will 
prove  himself  a  good  citizen.  But  the  dethronement  of  the 
Bible  leads  practically  to  the  dethronement  of  God;  and  in 
Germany  and  America,  and  now  in  England,  the  effects  of  this 
are  declaring  themselves  in  ways,  and  to  an  extent,  well  fitted 
to  cause  anxiety  for  the  future. 

Ill 


Christ  and  Criticism 


CHRIST    SUPREME 


If  a  personal  word  may  be  pardoned  in  conclusion,  the 
writer  would  appeal  to  every  book  he  has  written  in  proof 
that  he  is  no  champion  of  a  rigid,  traditional  "orthodoxy." 
With  a  single  limitation,  he  would  advocate  full  and  free  criti- 
cism of  Holy  Scripture.  And  that  one  limitation  is  that  the 
words  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  deemed  a  bar  to  criti- 
cism and  "an  end  of  controversy"  on  every  subject  expressly 
dealt  with  in  His  teaching.  "The  Son  of  God  is  come";  and 
by  Him  came  both  grace  and  TRUTH.  And  from  His  hand 
it  is  that  we  have  received  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 


112 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  MONUMENTS  TO  THE 
TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 

BY  PROF.  GEORGE  FREDERICK  WRIGHT,  D.  D.,  LL»  D., 
OBERLIN  COLLEGE 

All  history  is  fragmentary.  Each  particular  fact  is  the 
center  of  an  infinite  complex  of  circumstances.  No  man  has 
intelligence  enough  to  insert  a  suppositious  fact  into  circum- 
stances not  belonging  to  it  and  make  it  exactly  fit.  This  only 
infinite  intelligence  could  do.  A  successful  forgery,  there- 
fore, is  impossible  if  only  we  have  a  sufficient  number  of  the 
original  circumstances  with  which  to  compare  it.  It  is  this 
principle  which  gives  such  importance  to  the  cross-examination 
of  witnesses.  If  the  witness  is  truthful,  the  more  he  is  ques- 
tioned the  more  perfectly  will  his  testimony  be  seen  to  accord 
with  the  framework  of  circumstances  into  which  it  is  fitted. 
If  false,  the  more  will  his  falsehood  become  apparent. 

Remarkable  opportunities  for  cross-examining  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  have  been  afforded  by  the  recent  un- 
covering of  long-buried  monuments  in  Bible  lands  and  by 
deciphering  the  inscriptions  upon  them.  It  is  the  object  of 
this  essay  to  give  the  results  of  a  sufficient  portion  of  this 
cross-examination  to  afford  a  reasonable  test  of  the  com- 
petence and  honesty  of  the  historians  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and   of  the   faithfulness   with   which   their   record   has    been 

11^ 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

transmitted  to  us.  But  the  prescribed  limits  will  not  permit 
the  half  to  be  told ;  while  room  is  left  for  an  entire  essay  on 
the  discoveries  of  the  last  five  years  to  be  treated  by  another 
hand,  specially  competent  for  the  task. 

Passing  by  the  monumental  evidence  which  has  removed 
objections  to  the  historical  statements  of  the  New  Testament, 
as  less  needing  support,  attention  will  be  given  first  to  one  of 
the  Old  Testament  narratives,  which  is  nearest  to  us  in  time, 
and  against  which  the  harshest  judgments  of  modern  critics 
have  been  hurled.  We  refer  to  the  statements  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel  concerning  the  personality  and  fate  of  Belshazzar. 

THE  IDENTIFICATION  OF  BELSHAZZAR 

In  the  fifth  chapter  of  Daniel  Belshazzar  is  called  the 
"son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,"  and  is  said  to  have  been  "king"  of 
Babylon  and  to  have  been  slain  on  the  night  in  which  the 
city  was  taken.  But  according  to  the  other  historians  he 
was  the  son  of  Nabonidus,  who  was  then  king,  and  who  is 
known  to  have  been  out  of  the  city  when  it  was  captured,  and 
to  have  lived  some  time  afterwards. 

Here,  certainly,  there  is  about  as  glaring  an  apparent  dis- 
crepancy as  could  be  imagined.  Indeed,  there  would  seem  to 
be  a  flat  contradiction  between  profane  and  sacred  historians. 
But  in  1854  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  foun  I,  while  excavating 
in  the  ruins  of  Mugheir  (identified  as  the  site  of  the  city  of 
Ur,  from  which  Abraham  emigrated),  inscriptions  which 
stated  that  when  Nabonidus  was  near  the  end  of  his  reign 
he  associated  with  him  on  the  throne  his  eldest  son,  Bil- 
shar-uzzur,  and  allowed  him  the  royal  title,  thus  making  it 
perfectly  credible  that  Belshazzar  shoul  1  have  been  in  Baby* 

JJ4 


'riie   Testimony  of  the  Monuments 

Ion,  as  he  is  said  to  have  been  in  the  Bible,  and  that  he 
should  have  been  called  king,  and  that  he  should  have  per- 
ished in  the  city  while  Nabonidus  survived  outside.  That  he 
should  have  been  called  king  while  his  father  was  still  living 
is  no  more  strange  than  that  Jehoram  should  have  been  ap- 
pointed by  his  father,  Jehoshaphat,  king  of  Judah,  seven  years 
before  his  father's  death  (see  2  Kings  1:17  and  8:16),  or 
that  Jotham  should  have  been  made  king  before  his  father, 
Uzziah,  died  of  leprosy,  though  Uzziah  is  still  called  king  in 
some  of  the  references  to  him. 

That  Belshazzar  should  have  been  called  son  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar is  readily  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  that  he  was 
his  grandson,  and  there  are  many  things  to  indicate  that 
Nabonidus  married  Nebuchadnezzar's  daughter,  while  there 
is  nothing  known  to  the  contrary.  But  if  this  theory  is  re- 
jected, there  is  the  natural  supposition  that  in  the  loose  use 
of  terms  of  relationship  common  among  Oriental  people  **son" 
might  be  applied  to  one  who  was  simply  a  successor.  In  the 
inscriptions  on  the  monuments  of  Shalmaneser  II.,  referred 
to  below,  Jehu,  the  extirpator  of  the  house  of  Omri,  is  called 
the  **son  of  Omri." 

The  status  of  Belshazzar  implied  in  this  explanation  is 
confirmed  incidentally  by  the  fact  that  Daniel  is  promised  in 
verse  6  the  "third"  place  in  the  kingdom,  and  in  verse  29  is 
given  that  place,  all  of  which  implies  that  Belshazzar  was 
second  only. 

Thus,  what  was  formerly  thought  to  be  an  insuperable 
objection  to  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  Book  of  Daniel 
proves  to  be,  in  all  reasonable  probability,  a  mark  of  accuracy. 
The  coincidences  are  all  the  more  remarkable  for  being  so 
evidently  undesigned. 

"5 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

THE   BLACK    OBELISK    OF    SHALMANESER 

From  various  inscriptions  in  widely  separated  places  we 
are  now  able  to  trace  the  movements  of  Shalmaneser  II. 
through  nearly  all  of  his  career.  In  B.  C.  842  he  crossed  the 
Euphrates  for  the  sixteenth  timx  and  carried  his  conquests  to 
the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean.  Being  opposed  by  Hazael 
of  Damascus,  he  overthrew  the  Syrian  army,  and  pursued  it 
to  the  royal  city  and  shut  it  up  there,  while  he  devastated  the 
territory  surrounding.  But  while  there  is  no  mention  of  his 
fighting  with  the  Tyrians,  Sidonians,  and  Israelites,  he  is  said 
to  have  received  tribute  from  them  and  "from  Jehu,  the  son 
of  Omri.'*  This  inscription  occurs  on  the  celebrated  Black 
Obelisk  discovered  many  years  ago  by  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson 
in  the  ruins  of  Nimroud.  On  it  are  represented  strings  of 
captives  with  evident  Jewish  features,  in  the  act  of  bringing 
their  tribute  to  the  Assyrian  king.  Now,  though  there  is  no 
mention  in  the  sacred  records  of  any  defeat  of  Jehu  by  the 
Assyrians,  nor  of  the  paying  of  tribute  by  him,  it  is  most 
natural  that  tribute  should  have  been  paid  under  the  circum- 
stances ;  for  in  the  period  subsequent  to  the  battle  of  Karkar, 
Damascus  had  turned  against  Israel,  so  that  Israel's  most 
likely  method  of  getting  even  with  Hazael  would  have  been 
to  make  terms  with  his  enemy,  and  pay  tribute,  as  she  is  said 
to  have  done,  to  Shalmaneser. 

THE    MOABITE    STONE 

One  of  the  most  important  discoveries,  giving  reality  to 
Old  Testament  history,  is  that  of  the  Moabite  Stone,  discov- 
ered at  Dibon,  east  of  the  Jordan,  in  1868,  which  was  set 
up  by  King  Mesha  (about  850  B.  C.)  to  signalize  his  deliv- 

116 


The   Testimony   of  the  Monuments 

crance  from  the  yoke  of  Omri,  king  of  Israel.  The  inscrip- 
tion is  valuable,  among  other  things,  for  its  witness  to  the 
civilized  condition  of  the  Moabites  at  that  time  and  to  the 
close  similarity  of  their  language  to  that  of  the  Hebrews. 
From  this  inscription  we  learn  that  Omri,  king  of  Israel,  was 
compelled  by  the  rebellion  of  Mesha  to  resubjugate  Moab; 
and  that  after  doing  so,  he  and  his  son  occupied  the  cities 
of  iMoab  for  a  period  of  forty  years,  but  that,  after  a  series 
of  battles,  it  was  restored  to  Moab  in  the  days  of  Mesha. 
Whereupon  the  cities  and  fortresses  retaken  were  strength- 
ened, and  the  country  repopulated,  while  the  methods  of  war- 
fare were  similar  to  those  practiced  by  Israel.  On  comparing 
this  with  2  Kings  3 : 4-27,  we  find  a  parallel  account  which 
dovetails  in  with  this  in  a  most  remarkable  manner,  though 
naturally  the  biblical  narrative  treats  lightly  of  the  recon- 
quest  by  Mesha,  simply  stating  that,  on  account  of  the  horror 
created  by  the  idolatrous  sacrifice  of  his  eldest  son  upon  the 
walls  before  them,  the  Israelites  departed  from  the  land  and 
returned  to  their  own  country. 

TKE    EXPEDITION    OF    SHISHAK 

In  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  i  Kings  we  have  a  brief 
account  of  an  expedition  of  Shishak,  king  of  Egypt,  against 
Jerusalem  in  the  fifth  year  of  Rehoboam.  To  the  humiliation 
of  Judah,  it  is  told  that  Shishak  succeeded  in  taking  away  the 
treasures  of  the  house  of  Jehovah  and  of  the  king's  house, 
among  them  the  shields  of  gold  which  Solomon  had  made; 
so  that  Rehoboam  made  shields  of  brass  in  their  stead.  To 
this  simple,  unadorned  account  there  is  given  a  wonderful  air 
of  reality  as  one  gazes  o«  the  southern  wall  of  the  court  of 
the  temple  of  Amen  at  Karnak  and  beholds  the  great  expanse 

"7 


Thr  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

of  sculptures  and  hieroglyphics  which  are  there  inscribed  to 
represent  this  campaign  of  Shishak.  One  hundred  and  fifty- 
six  places  are  enumerated  among  those  which  were  captured, 
the  northernmost  being  Megiddo.  Among  the  places  are 
Gaza,  Adullam,  Beth-Horon,  Aijalon,  Gibeon,  and  Juda- 
Malech,  in  which  Dr.  Birch  is  probably  correct  in  recognizing 
the  sacred  city  of  Jerusalem, — Malech  being  the  word  for 
royalty. 

ISRAEL   IN    EGYPT 

The  city  of  Tahpanhes,  in  Egypt,  mentioned  by  Jeremiah 
as  the  place  to  which  the  refugees  fled  to  escape  from  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, was  discovered  in  1886  in  the  mound  known  as 
Tel  Defenneh,  in  the  northeastern  portion  of  the  delta,  where 
Mr.  Flinders  Petrie  found  not  only  evidences  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  palace  caused  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  but  apparently 
the  very  "brick  work  or  pavement"  spoken  of  in  Jer.  43 : 8 : 
"Then  came  the  word  of  the  Lx>rd  unto  Jeremiah  in  Tah- 
panhes, saying.  Take  great  stones  in  thine  hand,  and  hide 
them  in  mortar  in  the  brickwork,  which  is  at  the  entry  of 
Pharaoh's  house  in  Tahpanhes,  in  the  sight  of  the  men  of 
Judah,"  adding  that  Nebuchadnezzar  would  "set  his  throne 
upon  these  stones,"  and  "spread  his  royal  pavilion  over 
them." 

A  brick  platform  in  partial  ruins,  corresponding  to  this 
description,  was  found  by  Mr.  Petrie  adjoining  the  fort  "upon 
the  northwest."  In  every  respect  the  arrangement  corre- 
sponded to  that  indicated  in  the  Book  of  Jeremiah. 

Farther  to  the  north,  not  a  great  way  from  Tahpanhes, 
on  the  Tanitic  branch  of  the  Nile,  at  the  modern  village  of 
San,  excavations  revealed  the  ancient  Egyptian  capital  Tanis, 
which  went  under  the  earlier    name    of    Zoan,    where    the 

118 


The   Tcstbuony  of  the  Monuments 

Pharaoh  of  the  oppression  frequently  made  his  headquarters. 
According  to  the  Psalmist,  it  was  in  the  field  of  "Zoan"  that 
Closes  and  Aaron  wrought  their  wonders  before  Pharaoh; 
and,  according  to  the  Book  of  Numbers,  "Hebron"  was  built 
only  seven  years  before  Zoan.  As  Hebron  was  a  place  of 
importance  before  Abraham's  time,  it  is  a  matter  of  much 
significance  that  Zoan  appears  to  have  been  an  ancient  city 
which  was  a  favorite  dwelling-place  of  the  Hyksos,  or  Shep- 
herd Kings,  who  preceded  the  period  of  the  Exodus,  and 
were  likely  to  be  friendly  to  the  Hebrews,  thus  giving  greater 
credibility  to  the  precise  statements  made  in  Numbers,  and  to 
the  whole  narrative  of  the  reception  of  the  patriarchs  in 
Egypt. 

The  Pharaoh  of  the  Oppression,  'Svho  knew  not  Joseph," 
is  generally  supposed  to  be  Rameses  H.,  the  third  king  of 
the  nineteenth  dynasty,  known  among  the  Greeks  as  Sesostris, 
one  of  the  greatest  of  the  Egyptian  monarchs.  Among  his 
most  important  expeditions  was  one  directed  against  the 
tribes  of  Palestine  and  Syria,  where,  at  the  battle  of  Kadesh, 
east  of  the  Lebanon  Mountains,  he  encountered  the  Hittites. 
The  encounter  ended  practically  in  a  drawn  battle,  after 
which  a  treaty  of  peace  was  made.  But  the  whole  state  of 
things  revealed  by  this  campaign  and  subsequent  events  shows 
that  Palestine  was  in  substantially  the  same  condition  of  af- 
fairs which  was  found  by  the  children  of  Israel  when  they 
occupied  it  shortly  after,  thus  confirming  the  Scripture  account. 

This  Rameses  during  his  reign  of  sixty-seven  years  was 
among  the  greatest  builders  of  the  Egyptian  monarchs.  It  is 
estimated  that  nearly  half  of  the  extant  temples  were  built  in 
his  reign,  among  which  are  those  at  Karnak,  Luxor,  Abydos, 
Memphis,  and  Bubastis.  The  great  Ramesseum  at  Thebes  is 
also  his  work,  and  his  name  is  found  carved  on  almost  eveij 

119 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

monument  in  Egypt.  His  oppression  of  the  children  of  Israel 
was  but  an  incident  in  his  remarkable  career.  While  en- 
gaged in  his  Asiatic  campaigns  he  naturally  made  his  head- 
quarters at  Bubastis,  in  the  land  of  Goshen,  near  where  the 
old  canal  and  the  present  railroad  turn  off  from  the  delta 
toward  the  Bitter  Lakes  and  the  Gulf  of  Suez.  Here  the 
ruins  of  the  temple  referred  to  are  of  immense  extent  and 
include  the  fragments  of  innumerable  statues  and  monuments 
which  bear  the  impress  of  the  great  oppressor.  At  length, 
also,  his  mummy  has  been  identified;  so  that  now  we  have  a 
photograph  of  it  which  illustrates  in  all  its  lineaments  the 
strong  features  of  his  character. 

THE  STORE  CITIES  OF  PITHOM  AND  RAAMSES 

But  most  interesting  of  all,  in  1883,  there  were  uncovered, 
a  short  distance  east  of  Bubastis,  the  remains  of  vast  vaults, 
which  had  evidently  served  as  receptacles  for  storing  grain 
preparatory  to  supplying  military  and  other  expeditions  setting 
out  for  Palestine  and  the  far  East.  Unwittingly,  the  en- 
gineers of  the  railroad  had  named  the  station  Rameses.  But 
from  the  inscriptions  that  were  found  it  is  seen  that  its  orig- 
inal name  was  Pithom,  and  its  founder  was  none  other  than 
Rameses  H.,  and  it  proves  to  be  the  very  place  where  it  is 
said  in  the  Bible  that  the  children  of  Israel  "built  for  Pharaoh 
store-cities,  Pithom  and  Raamses"  (Ex.  i:ii),  when  the 
Egyptians  "made  their  lives  bitter  with  hard  bondage,  in 
mortar  and  in  brick."  It  was  in  connection  with  the  build- 
ing of  these  cities  that  the  oppression  of  the  children  of 
Israel  reached  its  climax,  when  they  were  compelled  (after 
the  straw  with  which  the  brick  were  held  together  failed)  to 
gather  for  themselves  stubble  which  should  serve  the  purpose 

120 


The    Testimony   of   the  Monuments 

of  straw,  and  finally,  when  even  the  stubble  failed,  to  make 
brick  without  straw  (Ex.  5). 

Now,  as  these  store  pits  at  Pithom  were  uncovered  by 
Mr.  Petrie,  they  were  found  (unlike  anything  else  in  Egypt) 
to  be  built  with  mortar.  Moreover,  the  lower  layers  were 
built  of  brick  which  contained  straw,  while  the  middle  layers 
were  made  of  brick  in  which  stubble,  instead  of  straw,  had 
been  used  in  their  formation,  and  the  upper  layers  were  of 
brick  made  without  straw.  A  more  perfect  circumstantial 
confirmation  of  the  Bible  account  could  not  be  imagined. 
Every  point  in  the  confirmation  consists  of  unexpected  dis- 
coveries. The  use  of  mortar  is  elsewhere  unknown  in  An- 
cient Egypt,  as  is  the  peculiar  succession  in  the  quality  of  the 
brick  used  in  the  construction  of  the  walls. 

Thus  have  all  Egyptian  explorations  shown  that  the 
writer  of  the  Pentateuch  had  such  familiarity  with  the  country, 
the  civilization,  and  the  history  of  Egypt  as  could  have  been 
obtained  only  by  intimate,  personal  experience.  The  leaf 
which  is  here  given  is  in  its  right  place.  It  could  not  have 
been  inserted  except  by  a  participant  in  the  events,  or  by 
direct  Divine  revelation. 

THE    HITTITES 

In  Joshua  i :  4,  the  country  between  Lebanon  and  the 
Euphrates  is  called  the  land  of  the  Hittites.  In  2  Sam.  24:6, 
according  to  the  reading  of  the  Septuagint,  the  limit  of  Joab's 
conquests  was  that  of  "the  Hittites  of  Kadesh,"  which  is  in 
Coele  Syria,  some  distance  north  of  the  present  Baalbeck. 
Solomon  is  also  said  to  have  imported  horses  from  "the  kings 
of  the  Hittites";  and  when  the  Syrians  were  besieging  Sam- 
aria,  according  to  2   Kings   7 : 6,  they   were  alarmed   from 

121 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

fear  that  the  king  of  Israel  had  hired  against  them  **the  kings 
of  the  Hittites."  These  references  imply  the  existence  of  a 
strong  nation  widely  spread  over  the  northern  part  of  Syria 
and  the  regions  beyond.  At  the  same  time  frequent  mention 
is  made  of  Hittite  families  in  Palestine  itself.  It  was  of  a 
Hittite  (Gen.  23:  10)  that  Abraham  bought  his  burying-place 
at  Hebron.  Bathsheba,  the  mother  of  Solomon,  had  been 
the  wife  of  Uriah  the  Hittite,  and  Esau  had  two  Hittite  wives. 
Hittites  are  also  mentioned  as  dwelling  with  the  Jebusites  and 
Amorites  in  the  mountain  region  of  Canaan. 

Until  the  decipherment  of  the  inscriptions  on  the  monu- 
ments of  Egypt  and  Assyria,  the  numerous  references  in  the 
Bible  to  this  mysterious  people  were  unconfirmed  by  any  other 
historical  authorities,  so  that  many  regarded  the  biblical  state- 
ments as  mythical,  and  an  indication  of  the  general  untrust- 
worthiness  of  biblical  history.  A  prominent  English  biblical 
critic  declared  not  many  years  ago  that  an  alliance  between 
Egypt  and  the  Hittites  was  as  improbable  as  would  be  one  at 
the  present  time  between  England  and  the  Choctaws.  But, 
alas  for  the  over-confident  critic,  recent  investigations  have 
shown,  not  only  that  such  an  alliance  was  natural,  but  that  it 
actually  occurred. 

From  the  monuments  of  Egypt  we  learn  that  Thothmes 
ni.  of  the  eighteenth  dynasty,  in  1470  B.  C,  marched  to  the 
banks  of  the  Euphrates  and  received  tribute  from  "the 
Greater  Hittites"  to  the  amount  of  3,200  pounds  of  silver  and 
a  "great  piece  of  crystal."  Seven  years  later  tribute  was 
again  sent  from  "the  king  of  the  Greater  Hittite  land."  Later, 
Amenophis  III.  and  IV.  are  said,  in  the  Tel  el-Amarna  tab- 
lets, to  have  been  constantly  called  upon  to  aid  in  repelling 
the  attacks  of  the  Hittite  king,  who  came  down  from  the 
north  and  intrigued  with  the  disaffected  Canaanitish  tribes 

122 


The   Testimony  of  the  Monuments 

in  Palestine;  while  in  B.  C.  1343,  Rameses  the  Great  at- 
tempted to  capture  the  Hittite  capital  at  Kadesh,  but  was  un- 
successful, and  came  near  losing  his  life  in  the  attempt,  extri- 
cating himself  from  an  ambuscade  only  by  most  heroic  deeds 
of  valor.  Four  years  later  a  treaty  of  peace  was  signed 
between  the  Hittites  and  the  Eg}^ptians,  and  a  daughter  of  the 
Hittite  king  was  given  in  marriage  to  Rameses. 

The  Assyrian  monuments  also  bear  abundant  testimony 
to  the  prominence  of  the  Hittites  north  and  west  of  the  Eu- 
phrates, of  which  the  most  prominent  state  was  that  with  its 
capital  at  Carchemish,  in  the  time  of  Tiglath-pileser  I.,  about 
1 100  B.  C.  In  854  B.  C  Shalmaneser  H.  included  the  kings 
of  Israel,  of  Ammon,  and  of  the  Arabs,  among  the  "Hittite" 
princes  whom  he  had  subdued,  thus  bearing  most  emphatic 
testimony  to  the  prominence  which  they  assumed  in  his  esti- 
mation. 

The  cuneiform  inscriptions  of  Armenia  also  speak  of 
numerous  wars  with  the  Hittites,  and  describe  *'the  land  of 
the  Hittites"  as  extending  far  westward  from  the  banks  of 
the  Euphrates. 

Hittite  sculptures  and  inscriptions  are  now  traced  in 
abundance  from  Kadesh,  in  Coele  Syria,  westward  to  Lydia, 
in  Asia  Minor,  and  northward  to  the  Black  Sea  beyond  Mar- 
sovan.  Indeed,  the  extensive  ruins  of  Boghaz-Keui,  seventy- 
five  miles  southwest  of  Marsovan,  seem  to  mark  the  principal 
capital  of  the  Hittites.  Here  partial  excavations  have  al- 
ready revealed  sculptures  of  high  artistic  order,  representing 
deities,  warriors  and  amazons,  together  with  many  hieroglyphs 
which  have  not  yet  been  translated.  The  inscriptions  are 
written  in  both  directions,  from  left  to  right,  and  then  below 
back  from  right  to  left.  Similar  inscriptions  are  found  in 
numerous  other  places.     No  clue  to  their  meaning  has  yet 

123 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New   Theology 

been  found,  and  even  the  class  of  languages  to  which  they 
belong  has  not  been  discovered.  But  enough  is  known  to 
show  that  the  Hittites  exerted  considerable  influence  upon 
the  later  civilization  which  sprung  up  in  Greece  and  on  the 
western  coasts  of  Asia  Minor.  It  was  through  them  that  the 
emblem  of  the  winged  horse  made  its  way  into  Europe.  The 
mural  crown  carved  upon  the  head  of  some  of  the  goddesses 
at  Boghaz-Keui  also  passed  into  Grecian  sculpture ;  while  the 
remarkable  lions  sculptured  over  the  gate  at  Mycenae  are 
thought  to  represent  Hittite,  rather  than  Babylonian  art. 

It  is  impossible  to  overestimate  the  value  of  this  testi- 
mony in  confirmation  of  the  correctness  of  biblical  history.  It 
shows  conclusively  that  the  silence  of  profane  historians  re- 
garding facts  stated  by  the  biblical  writers  is  of  small  ac- 
count, in  face  of  direct  statements  made  by  the  biblical  his- 
torians. All  the  doubts  entertained  in  former  times  con- 
cerning the  accuracy  of  the  numerous  biblical  statements  con- 
cerning the  Hittites  is  now  seen  to  be  due  to  our  ignorance. 
It  w^as  pure  ignorance,  not  superior  knowledge,  which  led  so 
many  to  discredit  these  representations.  When  shall  we  learn 
the  inconclusiveness  of  negative  testimony? 

THE  TEL  EL-AMARXA  TABLETS. 

In  1887  some  Arabs  discovered  a  wonderful  collection  of 
tablets  at  Tel  el-Amarna,  an  obscure  settlement  on  the  east 
bank  of  the  Nile,  about  two  hundred  miles  above  Cairo  and 
about  as  far  below  Thebes.  These  tablets  were  of  clay,  which 
had  been  written  over  with  cuneiform  inscriptions,  such  as  are 
found  in  Babylonia,  and  then  burnt,  so  as  to  be  indestructible. 
When  at  length  the  inscriptions  were  deciphered,  it  appeared 
that  they  were  a  collection  of  official  letters,  which  had  been 

124 


The    TcstiiuGuy   of   the  Monuments 

sent  shortly  before  1300  B.  C.  to  the  last  kings  of  the 
eighteenth  dynasty. 

There  were  in  all  about  three  hundred  letters,  most  of 
which  were  from  officers  of  the  Eg}ptian  army  scattered  over 
Palestine  to  maintain  the  Egyptian  rule  which  had  been  estab- 
lished by  the  preceding  kings,  most  prominent  of  whom  was 
Tahutimes  III.,  who  flourished  about  one  hundred  years  ear- 
lier. But  many  of  the  letters  were  from  the  kings  and  princes 
of  Babylonia.  What  surprised  the  world  most,  however,  was 
that  this  correspondence  was  carried  on,  not  in  the  hiero- 
glyphic script  of  Egypt,  but  in  the  cuneiform  script  of  Baby- 
lonia. 

All  this  was  partly  explained  when  more  became  known 
about  the  character  of  the  Eg}'ptian  king  to  whom  the  letters 
were  addressed.  His  original  title  was  Amenhotep  IV.,  in- 
dicating that  he  was  a  priest  of  the  sun  god  who  is  worshiped 
at  Thebes.  But  in  his  anxiety  to  introduce  a  religious  reform 
he  changed  his  name  to  Aken-Aten, — Aten  being  the  name  of 
the  deity  worshiped  at  Heliopolis,  near  Cairo,  where  Joseph 
got  his  wife.  The  efforts  of  Aken-Aten  to  transform  the  re- 
ligious worship  of  Egypt  were  prodigious.  The  more  perfectly 
to  accomplish  it,  he  removed  his  capital  from  Thebes  to  Tel  el- 
Amarna,  and  there  collected  literary  men  and  artists  and  archi- 
tects in  great  numbers  and  erected  temples  and  palaces,  v/hich, 
after  being  buried  in  the  sand  with  all  their  treasures  for  more 
than  three  thousand  years,  were  discovered  by  some  wander- 
ing Arabs  twenty-two  years  ago. 

A  number  of  the  longest  and  most  interesting  of  the  let- 
ters are  those  which  passed  between  the  courts  of  Egypt  and 
those  of  Babylonia.  It  appears  that  not  only  did  Aken-Aten 
marry  a  daughter  of  the  Babylonian  king,  but  his  mother  and 
grandmother  were  members  of  the  royal  family  in  Babylonia, 

125 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

and  also  that  one  of  the  daughters  of  the  king  of  Egypt  had 
been  sent  to  Babylonia  to  become  the  wife  of  the  king.  All 
this  comes  out  in  the  letters  that  passed  back  and  forth  relat- 
ing to  the  dowry  to  be  bestowed  upon  these  daughters  and 
relating  to  their  health  and  welfare. 

From  these  letters  we  learn  that,  although  the  king  of 
Babylon  had  sent  his  sister  to  be  the  wife  of  the  king  of  Egypt, 
that  was  not  sufficient.  The  king  of  Egypt  requested  also 
the  daughter  of  the  king  of  Babylon.  This  led  the  king  of 
Babylon  to  say  that  he  did  not  know  how  his  sister  was  treated ; 
in  fact,  he  did  not  know  whether  she  was  alive,  for  he  could 
not  tell  whether  or  not  to  believe  the  evidence  which  came 
to  him.  In  response,  the  king  of  Egypt  wrote:  "Why  don't 
you  send  some  one  who  knows  your  sister,  and  whom  you  can 
trust?"  Whereupon  the  royal  correspondents  break  off  into 
discussions  concerning  the  gifts  which  are  to  pass  between  the 
two  in  consideration  of  their  friendship  and  intimate  relations. 

Syria  and  Palestine  were  at  this  time  also,  as  at  the  pres- 
ent day,  infested  by  robbers,  and  the  messengers  passing  be- 
tween these  royal  houses  were  occasionally  waylaid.  Where- 
upon the  one  who  suffered  loss  would  claim  damages  from  the 
other  if  it  was  in  his  territory,  because  he  had  not  properly  pro- 
tected the  road.  An  interesting  thing  in  connection  with  one 
of  these  robberies  is  that  it  took  place  at  "Hannathon,"  one  of 
the  border  towns  mentioned  in  Josh.  19:14,  but  of  which  noth- 
ing else  was  ever  known  until  it  appeared  in  this  unexpected 
manner. 

Most  of  the  Tel  el-Amarna  letters,  however,  consist  of 
those  which  were  addressed  to  the  king  of  Egypt  (Amenhotep 
IV.)  by  his  officers  who  were  attempting  to  hold  the  Egyptian 
fortresses  in  Syria  and  Palestine  against  various  enemies  who 
:were  pressing  hard  upon  them.    Among  these  were  the  Hit- 

J26 


The   Testimony  of  the  Monuments 

tites,  of  whom  we  hear  so  much  in  later  times,  and  who,  com- 
ing down  from  the  far  north,  were  gradually  extending  their 
colonies  into  Palestine  and  usurping  control  over  the  northern 
part  of  the  country. 

About  sixty  of  the  letters  are  from  an  officer  named  Rib- 
addi,  who  is  most  profuse  in  his  expressions  of  humility  and 
loyalty,  addressing  the  king  as  *1iis  lord"  and  "sun,"  and  call- 
ing himself  the  "footstool  of  the  king's  feet,"  and  saying  that 
he  "prostrates  himself  seven  times  seven  times  at  his  feet."  He 
complains,  however,  that  he  is  not  properly  supported  in  his 
efforts  to  defend  the  provinces  of  the  king,  and  is  constantly 
wanting  more  soldiers,  more  cavalry,  more  money,  more  pro- 
visions, more  everything.  So  frequent  are  his  importunities 
that  the  king  finally  tells  him  that  if  he  will  write  less  and  fight 
more  he  would  be  better  pleased,  and  that  there  would  be  more 
hopes  of  his  maintaining  his  power.  But  Rib-addi  says  that 
he  is  being  betrayed  by  the  "curs"  that  are  surrounding  him, 
who  represent  the  other  countries  that  pretend  to  be  friendly 
to  Egypt,  but  are  not. 

From  this  correspondence,  and  from  letters  from  the  south 
of  Palestine,  it  is  made  plain  that  the  Egyptian  power  was 
fast  losing  its  hold  of  the  country,  thus  preparing  the  way  for 
the  condition  of  things  which  prevailed  a  century  or  two  later, 
v.l:en  Joshua  took  possession  of  the  promised  land,  and  found 
no  resistance  except  from  a  number  of  disorganized  tribes  then 
in  possession. 

In  this  varied  correspondence  a  large  number  of  places  are 
mentioned  with  which  we  are  familiar  in  Bible  history,  among 
them  Damascus,  Sidon,  Lachish,  Ashkelon,  Gaza,  Joppa,  and 
Jerusalem.  Indeed,  several  of  the  letters  are  written  from  Je- 
rusalem by  one  Abd-hiba,  who  complains  that  some  one  is  slan- 
dering him  to  the  king,  charging  that  he  was  in  revolt  against 

127 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

his  lord.  This,  he  says,  the  king  ought  to  know  is  absurd, 
from  the  fact  that  ''neither  my  father  nor  my  mother  appointed 
me  to  this  place.  The  strong  arm  of  the  king  inaugurated 
me  in  my  father's  territory.  Why  should  I  commit  an  offense 
against  my  lord,  the  king?"  The  argument  being  that,  as  his 
office  is  not  hereditary,  but  one  which  is  held  by  the  king's 
favor  and  appointment,  his  loyalty  should  be  above  question. 

A  single  one  of  these  Jerusalem  letters  may  suffice  for  an 
illustration : 

"To  My  Lx)rd  the  King : — Abd-hiba,  your  servant.  At  the 
feet  of  my  lord  the  king,  seven  and  seven  times  I  fall.  Behold 
the  deed  which  Milki-il  and  Suardata  have  done  against  the 
land  of  my  lord  the  king — they  have  hired  the  soldiers  of  Gazri, 
of  Gimti  and  of  Kilti,  and  have  taken  the  territory  of  Rubuti. 
The  territory  of  the  king  is  lost  to  Habiri.  And  now,  indeed, 
a  city  of  the  territory  of  Jerusalem,  called  Bit-Ninib,  one  of 
the  cities  of  the  king,  has  been  lost  to  the  people  of  Kilti.  Let 
the  king  listen  to  Abd-hiba,  his  servant,  and  send  troops  that 
I  may  bring  back  the  king's  land  to  the  king.  For  if  there  are 
no  troops,  the  land  of  the  kin^^-  will  be  lost  to  the  Habiri.  This 
is  the  deed  of  Suardata  and  Milki-il  *  *  *  [defective], 
and  let  the  king  take  care  of  his  land." 

The  discovery  of  these  Tel  el-Amarna  letters  came  like  a 
flash  of  lightning  upon  the  scholarly  world.  In  this  case  the 
overturning  of  a  few  spadefuls  of  earth  let  in  a  flood  of  light 
upon  the  darkest  portion  of  ancient  history,  and  in  every  way 
confirmed  the  Bible  story. 

As  an  official  letter-writer,  Rib-addi  has  had  few  equals, 
and  he  wrote  on  material  which  the  more  it  was  burned  the 
longer  it  lasted.  Those  who  think  that  a  history  of  Israel 
could  not  have  been  written  in  Moses'  time,  and  that,  if  writ- 
ten, it  could  not  have  been  preserved,  are  reasoning  without 

128 


The    Testimony   of   ike  Mouiniients 

due  knowledge  of  the  facts.  Considering  the  habits  of  the 
time,  it  would  have  been  well  nigh  a  miracle  if  Moses  and  his 
band  of  associates  coming  out  of  Egypt  had  not  left  upon  im- 
perishable clay  tablets  a  record  of  the  striking  events  through 
which  they  passed. 

ACCURACY  OF  GEOGRAPHICAL  DETAILS 

Many  persons  doubtless  wonder  w^iy  it  is  that  the  Bible 
so  abounds  in  "uninteresting"  Hsts  of  names  both  of  persons 
and  places  which  seem  to  have  no  relation  to  modern  times  or 
current  events.  Such,  however,  will  cease  to  wonder  when 
they  come  to  see  the  relation  which  these  lists  sustain  to  our 
confidence  in  the  trustworthiness  of  the  records  containing 
them.  They  are  like  the  water-marks  in  paper,  which  bear  in- 
delible evidence  of  the  time  and  place  of  manufacture.  If, 
furthermore,  one  should  contemplate  personal  explorations  in 
Egypt,  Canaan,  or  Babylonia,  he  would  find  that  for  his  pur- 
poses the  most  interesting  and  important  portions  of  the  Bible 
would  be  these  very  lists  of  the  names  of  persons  and  places 
which  seemed  to  encumber  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. 

One  of  the  most  striking  peculiarities  of  the  Bible  is  the 
"long  look"  toward  the  permanent  wants  of  mankind  which  is 
everywhere  manifested  in  its  preparation ;  so  that  it  circulates 
best  in  its  entirety.  No  man  knows  enough  to  abridge  the 
Bible  without  impairing  its  usefulness.  The  parts  which  the 
reviser  would  cut  out  as  superfluous  are  sure,  very  soon,  to  be 
found  to  be  "the  more  necessary."  If  we  find  that  we  have 
not  any  use  for  any  portion  of  the  Bible,  the  reason  doubtless 
is  that  we  have  not  lived  long  enough,  or  have  not  had  suffi- 
ciently wide  experience  to  test  its  merits  in  all  particulars. 

129 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

Gezer  was  an  important  place  in  Joshua's  time,  but  it  after- 
ward became  a  heap  of  ruins,  and  its  location  was  unknown 
until  1870,  when  M.  Germont-Ganneau  discovered  the  site  in 
Tel  Jezer,  and,  on  excavating  it,  found  three  inscriptions, 
which  on  interpretation  read  "Boundary  of  Gezer." 

Among  the  places  conquered  by  Joshua  one  of  the  most 
important  and  difficult  to  capture  was  Lachish  (Josh.  10.31). 
This  has  but  recently  been  identified  in  Tel  el-Hesy,  about 
eighteen  miles  northeast  of  Gaza.  Extensive  excavations,  first 
in  1890  by  Dr.  Flinders  Petrie,  and  finally  by  Dr.  Bliss,  found 
a  succession  of  ruins,  one  below  the  other,  the  lower  founda- 
tions of  which  extended  back  to  about  1700  B.  C.,  some  time 
before  the  period  of  conquest,  showing  at  that  time  a  walled 
city  of  great  strength.  In  the  debris  somewhat  higher  than 
this  there  was  found  a  tablet  with  cuneiform  inscriptions  cor- 
responding to  the  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets,  which  are  known  to 
have  been  sent  to  Egypt  from  this  region  about  1400  B.  C.  At 
a  later  period,  in  the  time  of  Sennacherib,  Lachish  was  as- 
saulted and  taken  by  the  Assyrian  army,  and  the  account  of 
the  siege  forms  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  scenes  on  the 
walls  of  Sennacherib's  palace  in  Nineveh.  These  sculptures 
are  now  in  the  British  Museum. 

Among  the  places  mentioned  in  the  Tel  el-Amarna  corre- 
spondence from  which  letters  were  sent  to  Egypt  about  1400 
B.  C,  are  Gebal,  Beirut,  Tyre,  Accho  (Acre),  Hazor,  Joppha, 
Ashkelon,  Makkadah,  Lachish,  Gezer,  Jerusalem;  while  men- 
tion is  also  made  of  Rabbah,  Sarepta,  Ashtaroth,  Gaza,  Gath, 
Bethshemesh,  all  of  which  are  familiar  names,  showing  that  the 
Palestine  of  Joshua  is  the  Palestine  known  to  Egypt  in  the 
preceding  century.  Two  hundred  years  before  this  (about 
1600  B.  C.)  also,  Thothmes'in.  conquered  Palestine,  and  gives 
in  an  inscription  the  names  of  more  than  fifty  towns  which 

130 


The   Testimony  of  the  Monuments 

can  be  confidently  identified  with  those  in  the  Book 
of  Joshua. 

Finally,  the  forty-two  stations  named  in  Num.  33  as  camp- 
ing places  for  the  children  of  Israel  on  their  way  to  Palestine, 
while  they  cannot  all  of  them  be  identified,  can  be  determined 
in  sufiicient  numbers  to  show  that  it  is  not  a  fictitious  list,  nor 
a  mere  pilgrim's  diary,  since  the  scenes  of  greatest  interest, 
like  the  region  immediately  about  Mount  Sinai,  are  specially 
adapted  to  the  great  transactions  which  are  recorded  as  taking 
place.  Besides,  it  is  incredible  that  a  writer  of  fiction  should 
have  encumbered  his  pages  with  such  a  barren  catalogue  of 
places.  But  as  part  of  the  great  historical  movement  they  are 
perfectly  appropriate. 

This  conformity  of  newly  discovered  facts  to  the  narra- 
tive of  Sacred  Scripture  confirms  our  confidence  in  the  main 
testimony;  just  as  the  consistency  of  a  witness  in  a  cross- 
examination  upon  minor  and  incidental  points  establishes  con- 
fidence in  his  general  testimony.  The  late  Sir  Walter  Besant, 
in  addition  to  his  other  literary  and  philanthropic  labors,  was 
for  many  years  secretary  of  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund. 
In  reply  to  the  inquiry  whether  the  work  of  the  survey  under 
his  direction  sustained  the  historical  character  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, he  says :  "To  my  mind,  absolute  truth  in  local  details, 
a  thing  which  cannot  possibly  be  invented,  when  it  is  spread 
over  a  history  covering  many  centuries,  is  proof  almost  ab- 
solute as  to  the  truth  of  the  things  related."  Such  proof  we 
have  for  every  part  of  the  Bible. 

THE  FOURTEENTH  OF  GENESIS 

The  fourteenth  chapter  of  Genesis  relates  that  "In  the 
days  of  Amraphcl,  king  of  Shinar,  Arioch,  king  of  Ellasar, 

131 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

Chedorlaomer,  king  of  Elam,  and  Tidal,  king  of  Goiim  (na- 
tions), they  made  war  with  Bera,  king  of  Sodom,  and  with 
Bersha,  king  of  Gomorrah,  and  Shinab,  king  of  Admah,  and 
Shemeber,  king  of  Zeboim,  and  the  king  of  Bela  (the  same  is 
Zoar)."  The  Babylonian  kings  were  successful  and  the  region 
about  the  Dead  Sea  was  subject  to  them  for  twelve  years,  when 
a  rebellion  was  instigated  and  in  the  following  year  Chedor- 
laomer and  the  kings  that  were  with  him  appeared  on  the  scene 
and,  after  capturing  numerous  surrounding  cities,  joined  battle 
with  the  rebellious  allies  in  the  vale  of  Siddim,  which  was  full 
of  slime  pits.  The  victory  of  Chedorlaomer  was  complete,  and 
after  capturing  Lot  and  his  goods  in  Sodom  he  started  home- 
ward by  way  of  Damascus,  near  which  place  Abraham  over- 
took him,  and  by  a  successful  stratagem  scattered  his  forces  by 
night  and  recovered  Lot  and  his  goods.  This  story,  told  with 
so  many  details  that  its  refutation  would  be  easy  if  it  were  not 
true  to  the  facts  and  if  there  were  contemporary  records  with 
which  to  compare  it,  has  been  a  special  butt  for  the  ridicule  of 
the  Higher  Critics  of  the  Wellhausen  school,  Professor  Nol- 
deke  confidently  declaring  as  late  as  1869  that  criticism  had 
forever  disproved  its  claim  to  be  historical.  But  here  again 
the  inscriptions  on  the  monuments  of  Babylonia  have  come 
to  the  rescue  of  the  sacred  historian,  if,  indeed,  he  were  in 
need  of  rescue.  (For  where  general  ignorance  was  so  pro- 
found as  it  was  respecting  that  period  forty  years  ago,  true 
modesty  should  have  suggested  caution  in  the  expression  of 
positive  opinions  in  contradiction  to  such  a  detailed  historical 
statement  as  this  is.) 

FrorH  the  inscriptions  already  discovered  and  deciphered 
in  the  Valley  of  the  Euphrates,  it  is  now  shown  beyond  rea- 
sonable doubt  that  the  four  kings  mentioned  in  the  Bible  as 
joining  in  this  expedition  are  not,  as  was  freely  seid,  "etymo- 

13^ 


The   Testimony   of  the  Monuuients 

logical  inventions,"  but  real  historical  persons.  Amraphel  is 
identified  as  the  Hammurabi  whose  marvelous  code  of  laws 
was  so  recently  discovered  by  De  Morj^^an  at  Susa.  The  **H" 
in  the  latter  word  simply  expresses  the  rough  breathing  so 
well  known  in  Hebrew,  The  "p"  in  the  biblical  name  has 
taken  the  place  of  "b"  by  a  well-recognized  law  of  phonetic 
change.  *'Amrap''  is  equivalent  to  "Hamrab."  The  addition 
of  "il"  in  the  biblical  name  is  probably  the  suffix  of  the  di- 
vine name,  like  "el"  in  Israel. 

Hammurabi  is  now  known  to  have  had  his  capital  at 
Babylon  at  the  time  of  Abraham.  Until  recently  this  chro- 
nology was  disputed,  so  that  the  editors  and  contributors  of  the 
New  Schafif-Horzog  Cyclopedia  dogmatically  asserted  that  as 
Abraham  lived  nearly  300  years  later  than  Hammurabi,  the 
biblical  story  must  be  unhistorical.  Hardly  had  these  state- 
ments been  printed,  however,  when  Dr.  King  of  the  British 
Museum  discovered  indisputable  evidence  that  two  of  the 
dynasties  which  formerly  had  been  reckoned  as  consecutive 
were,  in  fact,  contemporaneous,  thus  making  it  easy  to  bring 
Hammurabi's  time  down  exactly  to  that  of  Abraham. 

Chedorlaomer  is  pretty  certainly  identified  as  Kudur- 
Lagamar  (servant  of  Lagamar,  one  of  the  principal  Elamite 
gods).  Kudur-Lagamar  was  king  of  Elam,  and  was  either 
the  father  or  the  brother  of  Kudur-Mabug,  whose  son,  Eri- 
Aku  (Arioch),  reigned  over  Larsa  and  Ur,  and  other  cities  of 
southern  Babylonia.  He  speaks  of  Kudur-Mabug  ''as  the 
father  of  the  land  of  the  Amorites,"  i.  e.,  of  Palestine  and 
Syria. 

Tidal,  "king  of  nations,"  was  supposed  by  Dr.  Pinches  to 
be  referred  to  on  a  late  tablet  in  connection  with  Chedor- 
laomer and  Arioch  under  the  name  Tudghula,  who  are  said, 
together,  to  have  "attacked  and  spoiled  Babylon." 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

However  much  doubt  there  may  be  about  the  identifica- 
tion of  some  of  these  names,  the  main  points  are  established, 
revealing  a  condition  of  things  just  such  as  is  implied  by  the 
biblical  narrative.  Ariocli  styles  himself  king  of  Shumer 
and  Accad,  which  embraced  Babylon,  where  Amraphel  (Ham- 
murabi) was  in  his  early  years  subject  to  him.  This  furnishes 
a  reason  for  the  association  of  Chedorlaomer  and  Amraphel 
in  a  campaign  against  the  rebellious  subjects  in  Palestine. 
Again,  Kudur-Mabug,  the  father  of  Arioch,  styles  himself 
"Prince  of  the  land  of  Amurru,"  i.  e.,  of  Palestine  and  Syria. 
Moreover,  for  a  long  period  before,  kings  from  Babylonia 
had  claimed  possession  of  the  whole  eastern  shore  of  the 
Mediterranean,  including  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula. 

In  light  of  these  well-attested  facts,  one  reads  with  aston- 
ishment the  following  words  of  Wellhausen,  written  no  longer 
ago  than  1889:  'That  four  kings  from  the  Persian  Gulf 
should,  'in  the  time  of  Abraham,'  have  made  an  incursion  into 
the  Sinaitic  Peninsula,  that  they  should  on  this  occasion  have 
attacked  five  kinglets  on  the  Dead  Sea  Littoral  and  have  car- 
ried them  off  prisoners,  and  finally  that  Abraham  should  have 
set  out  in  pursuit  of  the  retreating  victors,  accompanied  by 
318  men  servants,  and  have  forced  them  to  disgorge  their 
prey, — all  these  incidents  are  sheer  impossibilities  which  gain 
nothing  in  credibility  from  the  fact  that  they  are  placed  in  a 
world  which  had  passed  away.'' 

And  we  can  have  little  respect  for  the  logic  of  a  later 
scholar  (George  Adam  Smith),  who  can  write  the  following: 
"We  must  admit  that  while  archaeology  has  richly  illustrated 
the  possibility  of  the  main  outlines  of  the  Book  of  Genesis 
from  Abraham  to  Joseph,  it  has  not  one  whit  of  proof  to 
offer  for  the  personal  existence  or  the  characters  of  the  patri- 
archs themselves.    This  is  the  whole  change  archaeology  has 

134 


The   Testimony   of   the  Monuinents 

wrought ;  it  has  given  us  a  background  and  an  atmosphere  for 
the  stories  of  Genesis;  it  is  unable  to  recall  or  certify  their 
heroes." 

But  the  name  Abraham  does  appear  in  tablets  of  the  age 
of  Hammurabi.  (See  Professor  George  Barton  in  Journal  of 
Biblical  Literature,  Vol.  28,  1909,  page  153.)  It  is  true  that 
this  evidently  is  not  the  Abraham  of  the  Bible,  but  that  of  a 
small  farmer  who  had  rented  land  of  a  well-to-do  land  owner. 
The  preservation  of  his  name  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  most 
of  the  tablets  preserved  contain  contracts  relating  to  the 
business  of  the  times.  There  is  little  reason  to  expect  that  we 
should  find  a  definite  reference  to  the  Abraham  who,  in  early 
life,  migrated  from  his  native  land.  But  it  is  of  a  good  deal  of 
significance  that  his  nam.e  appears  to  have  been  a  common  one 
in  the  time  and  place  of  his  nativity. 

In  considering  the  arguments  in  the  case,  it  is  important 
to  keep  in  mind  that  where  so  few  facts  are  known,  and  gen- 
eral ignorance  is  so  great,  negative  evidence  is  of  small  ac- 
count, while  every  scrap  of  positive  evidence  has  great  weight. 
The  burden  of  proof  in  such  cases  falls  upon  those  who  dis- 
pute the  positive  evidence.  For  example,  in  the  article  above 
referred  to,  Professor  Barton  argues  that  it  is  not  ''quite  cer- 
tain" that  Arioch  (Eri-Agu)  was  a  real  Babylonian  king.  But 
he  admits  that  our  ignorance  is  such  that  we  must  admit  its 
"possibility."  Dr.  Barton  further  argues  that  ''we  have  as 
yet  no  evidence  from  the  inscriptions  that  Arad-Sin,  even  if 
he  were  called  Iri-Agu,  ever  had  anything  to  do  with  Ham- 
murabi." But,  he  adds,  "Of  course,  it  is  possible  that  he  may 
have  had,  as  their  reigns  must  have  overlapped,  but  that  re- 
mains to  be  proved." 

All  such  reasoning  (and  there  is  any  amount  of  it  in  the 
critics  of  the  prevalent  school)   reveals  a  lamentable  lack  in 

135 


Tlie  Higher  Criticism   and   The  Nezv  Theology 

their  logical  training.  When  we  have  a  reputable  document 
containing  positive  historical  statements  which  are  shown  by 
circumstantial  evidence  to  be  possible,  that  is  all  we  need  to 
accept  them  as  true.  When,  further,  we  find  a  great  amount 
of  circumstantial  evidence  positively  showing  that  the  state- 
ments conform  to  the  conditions  of  time  and  place,  so  far  as 
we  know  them,  this  adds  immensely  to  the  weight  of  the  tes- 
timony. We  never  can  fill  in  all  the  background  of  any  his- 
torical fact.  But  if  the  statement  of  it  fits  into  the  background 
so  far  as  we  can  fill  it  in,  we  should  accept  the  fact  until  posi- 
tive contrary  evidence  is  produced.  No  supposition  can  be 
more  extravagant  than  that  which  Professor  Barton  seems  to 
accept  (which  is  that  of  the  German  critic,  Meyer)  that  a  Jew, 
more  than  i,ooo  years  after  the  event,  obtained  in  Babylon  the 
amount  of  exact  information  concerning  the  conditions  in 
Babylonia  in  Abraham's  time,  found  in  the  fourteenth  chapter 
of  Genesis,  and  interpolated  the  story  of  Chedorlaomer's  ex- 
pedition into  the  background  thus  furnished.  To  entertain 
such  a  supposition  discredits  the  prevalent  critical  scholarship, 
rather  than  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 

But  present  space  forbids  further  enumeration  of  particu- 
lars. It  is  suflficient  to  say  that  while  many  more  positive  con- 
firmations of  the  seemingly  improbable  statements  of  the  sa- 
cred historians  can  be  adduced,  there  have  been  no  discoveries 
which  necessarily  contravene  their  statements.  The  cases  al- 
ready here  enumerated  relate  to  such  widely  separated  times 
and  places,  and  furnish  explanations  so  unexpected,  yet  natu- 
ral, to  difficulties  that  have  been  thought  insuperable,  that  their 
testimony  cannot  be  ignored  or  rejected.  That  this  history 
should  be  confirmed  in  so  many  cases  and  in  such  a  remark- 
able manner  by  monum.ents  uncovered  3,000  years  after  their 
erection,  can  be  nothing  else  than  providential.     Surely,  God 

136 


The    Tcsfiiiiony   of   the  Monuments 

has  seen  to  it  that  the  faiUng  faith  of  these  later  days  should 
not  be  left  to  grope  in  darkness.  When  the  faith  of  many 
was  waning  and  many  heralds  of  truth  were  tempted  to  speak 
with  uncertain  sound,  the  very  stones  have  cried  out  with  a 
voice  that  only  the  deaf  could  fail  to  hear.  Both  in  the  writ- 
ing and  in  the  preservation  of  the  Bible  we  behold  the  handi- 
work of  God. 


n? 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  RECENT  TESTIMONY  OF  ARCHEOLOGY  TO 
THE  SCRIPTURES 

BY    M.   G.   KYLE,   D.   D.,   LL.   D., 

EGYPTOLOGIST 

PROFESSOR     OF     BIBLICAL     ARCHEOLOGY,     XENIA     THEOLOGICAL 

SEMINARY 

CONSULTING    EDITOR    OF    THE    RECORDS    OF    THE    PAST,    '.VASH- 
INGTON,  D.   C. 

(The  numbers  in  parentheses  throughout  this  article  refer 
to  the  notes  at  the  end  of  the  article.) 

INTRODUCTION 

"Recent"  is  a  dangerously  capacious  word  to  intrust  to  an 
archaeologist.  Anything  this  side  of  the  Day  of  Pentecost  is 
"recent"  in  biblical  archaeology.  For  this  review,  however, 
anything  since  1904  is  accepted  to  be,  in  a  general  way,  the 
meaning  of  the  word  "recent." 

"Recent  testimony  of  archaeology"  may  be  either  the  testi- 
mony of  recent  discoveries  or  recent  testimony  of  former  dis- 
coveries. A  new  interpretation,  if  it  be  established  to  be  a 
true  interpretation,  is  a  discovery.  For  to  uncover  is  not  al- 
way  to  discover;  indeed,  the  real  value  of  a  discovery  is  not 
its  emergence,  but  its  significance,  and  the  discovery  of  its 
real  significance  is  the  real  discovery. 

The  most  important  testimony  to  the  Scriptures  of  this 
five-year  archaeological  period  admits  of  some  classification: 

138 


The  Recent  Testimony  of  Archaeology 

I.      THE   HISTORICAL  SETTING  OF  THE  PATRIARCHAL  RECEPTION 

IN   EGYPT 

The  reception  in  Egypt  accorded  to  Abraham  and  to  Jacob 
and  his  sons^^  and  the  elevation  of  Joseph  there^'^  per- 
emptorily demand  either  the  acknowledgment  of  a  mythical 
element  in  the  stories,  or  the  belief  in  a  suitable  historical  set- 
ting therefor.  Obscure,  insignificant,  private  citizens  are  not 
accorded  such  recognition  at  a  foreign  and  unfriendly  court. 
While  some  have  been  conceding  a  mythical  element  in  the 
stories^^  archaeology  has  uncovered  to  view  such  appropriate 
historical  setting  that  the  patriarchs  are  seen  not  to  have 
been  obscure,  insignificant,  private  citizens,  nor  Zoan  a  foreign 
and  unfriendly  court. 

The  presence  of  the  Semitic  tongue  in  Hyksos'  territory 
has  long  been  known^*^ ;  from  still  earlier  than  patriarchal 
times  until  much  later,  the  Phoenicians,  first  cousins  of  the  He- 
brews, did  the  foreign  business  of  the  Egyptians^^\  as  the 
English,  the  Germans,  and  the  French  do  the  foreign  business 
of  the  Chinese  of  today;  and  some  familiarity,  even  sympa- 
thy, with  Semitic  religion  has  been  strongly  suspected  from 
the  interview  of  the  Hyksos  kings  with  the  patriarchs^"^ ; 
but  the  discovery  in  igo6^''\  by  Petrie,  of  the  great  fortified 
camp  at  Tel-el-Yehudiyeh  set  at  rest,  in  the  main,  the  biblical 
question  of  the  relation  between  the  patriarchs  and  the  Hyksos. 
The  abundance  of  Hyksos  scarabs  and  the  almost  total  ab- 
sence of  all  others  mark  the  camp  as  certainly  a  Hyksos 
camp^^ ;  the  original  character  of  the  fortifications,  before 
the  Hyksos  learned  the  builders'  craft  from  the  Egyptians, 
shows  them  to  have  depended  upon  the  bow  for  defense^; 
and,  finally,  the  name  Hyksos,  in  the  Eg>'ptian  Haq  Shashu^*^ 
"Bedouin  princes,"  brings  out,  sharp  and  clear,  the  harmoni- 

139 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

ous  picture  of  which  we  have  had  glimpses  for  a  long  time,  of 
the  Hyksos  as  wandering  tribes  of  the  desert,  of  "Upper  and 
Lower  Ruthen"^'^ ;  i.  e,,  Syria  and  Palestine,  northern  and 
western  Arabia,  "Bow  people"^"^  as  the  Egyptians  called 
them,  their  traditional  enemies  as  far  back  as  pyramid 
times(">. 

Why,  then,  should  not  the  patriarchs  have  had  a  royal  re- 
ception in  Egypt?  They  were  themselves  also  the  heads  of 
wandering  tribes  of  "Upper  and  Lower  Ruthen,"  in  the 
tongue  of  the  Egyptians,  Haq  Shashu,  "Bedouin  princes" ;  and 
among  princes,  a  prince  is  a  prince,  however  small  his  princi- 
pality. So  Abraham,  the  Bedouin  prince,  was  accorded 
princely  consideration  at  the  Bedouin  court  in  Egypt ;  Joseph, 
the  Bedouin  slave,  became  again  the  Bedouin  prince  when  the 
wisdom  of  God  with  him  and  his  rank  by  birth  became  known. 
And  Jacob  and  his  other  sons  w^ere  welcome,  with  all  their  fol- 
lowers and  their  wealth,  as  a  valuable  acquisition  to  the  court 
party,  always  harassed  by  the  restive  and  rebellious  native 
Egyptians.  This  does  not  prove  racial  identity  between  the 
Hyksos  and  the  patriarchs,  but  very  close  tribal  relationship. 
And  thus  every  suspicion  of  a  mythical  element  in  the  nar- 
rative of  the  reception  accorded  the  patriarchs  in  Egypt  dis- 
appears when  archaeology  has  testified  to  the  true  historical 
setting. 

II.      THE  HITTITE  VINDICATION 

A  second  recent  testimony  of  archceology  gives  ns  the 
great  Hittite  vindication.  The  Hittites  have  been,  in  one  re- 
spect, the  Trojans  of  Bible  history;  indeed,  the  inhabitants  of 
old  Troy  were  scarcely  more  in  need  of  a  Schliemann  to  vin- 
dicate their  claim  to  reality  than  the  Hittites  of  a  Winckler. 

In  1904  one  of  the  foremost  archaeologists  of  Europe  said 

140 


The  Recent  Testimony  of  Archa^ology 

to  me :  *'I  do  not  believe  there  ever  were  such  people  as  the 
Hittites,  and  I  do  not  believe  'Kheta'  in  the  Egyptian  inscrip- 
tions was  meant  for  the  name  Hittites."  We  will  allow  that 
archaeologist  to  be  nameless  now.  But  the  ruins  of  Troy  vin- 
dicated the  right  of  her  people  to  a  place  in  real  history,  and 
the  ruins  of  Boghatz-Koi  bid  fair  to  afford  a  more  striking 
vindication  of  the  Bible  representation  of  the  Hittites. 

Only  the  preliminary  announcement  of  Winckler's  great 
treasury  of  documents  from  Boghatz-Koi  has  yet  been 
made^*\  The  complete  unfolding  of  a  long-eclipsed  great 
national  history  is  still  awaited  impatiently.  But  enough  has 
been  published  to  redeem  this  people  completely  from  their 
half-mythical  plight,  and  give  them  a  firm  place  in  sober  his- 
tory greater  than  imagination  had  ever  fancied  for  them  under 
the  stimulus  of  any  hint  contained  in  the  Bible. 

There  has  been  brought  to  light  a  Hittitc  empire^^'  in 
Asia  Minor,  with  central  power  and  vassal  dependencies  round 
about  and  with  treaty  rights  on  equal  terms  with  the  greatest 
nations  of  antiquity,  thus  making  the  Hittite  power  a  third 
great  power  with  Babylonia  and  Egypt,  as  was,  indeed,  fore- 
shadowed in  the  great  treaty  of  the  Hittites  with  Rameses  H., 
inscribed  on  the  projecting  wing  of  the  south  wall  of  the 
Temple  of  Amon  at  Karnak^^^  though  Rameses  tried  so  hard 
to  obscure  the  fact.  The  ruins  at  the  village  of  Boghatz-Koi 
are  shown  also  to  mark  the  location  of  the  Hittite  capital^"^ 
and  the  unknown  language  on  the  cuneiform  tablets  recovered 
there  to  be  the  Hittite  tongue^^*\  while  the  cuneiform  method 
of  writing,  as  already  upon  the  Amarna  tablets^"*\  so  still 
more  clearly  here,  is  seen  to  have  been  the  diplomatic  script, 
and  in  good  measure  the  Babylonian  to  have  been  the  diplo- 
matic language  of  the  Orient  in  that  age^^^  And  the  large 
admixture  of  Bab^^'lonian  words  and  forms  in  these  Hittite  in- 

141 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

scriptions  opens  the  way  for  the  real  decipherment  of  the 
Hittite  language^"^  and  imagination  can  scarcely  promise  too 
much  to  our  hopes  for  the  light  which  such  a  decipherment 
will  throw  upon  the  historical  and  cultural  background  of  the 
Bible. 

Only  one  important  point  remains  to  be  cleared  up,  the 
relation  between  the  Hittite  language  of  these  cuneiform  tab- 
lets and  the  language  of  the  Hittite  hieroglyphic  inscrip- 
tion^"^  That  these  were  identical  is  probable;  that  the  hiero- 
glyphic inscriptions  represent  an  older  form  of  the  language, 
a  kind  of  ''Hieratic/'  is  possible;  that  it  was  essentially  dif- 
ferent from  the  language  of  these  tablets  is  improbable.  There 
has  been  the  Hittite  vindication;  the  complete  illumination  of 
Hittite  history  is  not  likely  to  be  long  delayed. 

III.      THE    PALESTINIAN    CIVILIZATION 

Other  recent  tesHlnony  of  archccology  brings  before  us 
the  Palestinian  civilisation  of  the  conquest  period.  Palestinian 
explorations  within  the  last  few  years  have  yielded  a  star- 
thng  array  of  "finds"  illustratingtliings  mentioned  in  the  Bible, 
finds  of  the  same  things,  finds  of  like  things,  and  finds  in  har- 
mony with  things^'"^  Individual  mention  of  them  all  is  here 
neither  possible  nor  desirable.  Of  incomparably  greater  im- 
portance than  these  individually  interesting  relics  of  Canaan- 
ite  antiquity  is  the  answer  afforded  by  recent  research  to 
two  questions: 

I.  First  in  order,  Does  the  Canaanite  culture  as  revealed 
by  the  excavations  accord  with  the  story  of  Israel  at  the  con- 
quest as  related  in  the  Bible  ?  How  much  of  a  break  in  culture 
is  required  by  the  Bible  account,  and  how  much  is  revealed  by 
the   excavations?     For  answer,  we  must  find  a  standpoint 

142 


The  Recent  Testimony  of  Archceology 

somewhere  between  that  of  the  dilettante  traveler  in  the  land 
of  the  microscopist  scientist  thousands  of  miles  away.  The 
careful  excavator  in  the  field  occupies  that  sane  and  safe 
middle  point  of  view.  Petrie^"\  Bliss^\  Macalister^''>,  Schu- 
macker^*'^  and  Sellin^"*^ — these  are  the  men  with  whom  to 
stand.  And  for  light  on  the  early  civilization  of  Palestine,  the 
great  work  of  Macalister  at  Gezer  stands  easily  first. 

HISTORICAL  VALUE  OF   POTTERY 

In  determining  this  question  of  culture,  too  much  impor- 
tance has  been  allowed  to  that  estimate  of  time  and  chrono- 
logical order  which  is  gained  exclusively  from  the  study  of 
pottery.  The  pottery  remains  are  not  to  be  undervalued,  and 
neither  are  they  to  be  overvalued.  Time  is  only  one  thing 
that  shows  itself  in  similarity  or  dissimilarity  in  pottery.  Dif- 
ferent stages  of  civilization  at  different  places  at  the  same 
time,  and  adaptation  to  an  end  either  at  the  same  time  or  at 
widely  different  times,  show  themselves  in  potter}',  and  render 
very  uncertain  any  chronological  deduction.  And,  still  more, 
available  material  may  result  in  the  production  of  similar  pot- 
tery in  two  very  different  civilizations  arising  one  thousand 
years  or  more  apart.  This  civilization  of  pots,  as  a  deciding 
criterion,  is  not  quite  adequate,  and  is  safe  as  a  criterion  at 
all  only  when  carefully  compared  with  the  testimony  of  loca- 
tion, intertribal  relations,  governmental  domination,  and  liter- 
ary attainments. 

These  are  the  things,  in  addition  to  the  pots,  which  help 
to  determine — indeed,  which  do  determine — how  much  of  a 
break  in  culture  is  required  by  the  Bible  account  of  the  Con- 
quest, and  how  much  is  shown  by  excavations.  Since  the 
Israelites  occupied  the  cities   and  towns  and  vineyards  and 

113 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

olive  orchards  of  the  Canaanites,  and  their  "houses  full  of  all 
good  thiiigs"^'^\  had  the  same  materials  and  in  the  main 
the  same  purposes  for  pottery  and  would  adopt  methods  of 
cooking  suited  to  the  country,  spoke  the  "language  of  Ca- 
naan"^^  and  were  of  the  same  race  as  many  of  the  people 
of  Canaan,  intermarried,  though  against  their  law^'^\  with 
the  people  of  the  land,  and  were  continually  chided  for  lapses 
into  the  idolatry  and  superstitious  practices  of  the  Canaan- 
ites^"\  and,  in  short,  were  greatly  different  from  them  only  in 
religion,  it  is  evident  that  the  only  marked,  immediate  change 
to  be  expected  at  the  Conquest  is  a  change  in  religion,  and 
that  any  other  break  in  culture  occasioned  by  the  devastation 
of  war  will  be  only  a  break  in  continuance  of  the  same  kind 
of  culture,  evidence  of  demolition,  spoliation,  and  reconstruc- 
tion. Exactly  such  change  in  religion  and  interruption  in 
culture  as  the  Conquest  period  excavations  shov/. 

RELIGION   AND  CULTURE 

(a)  The  rubbish  at  Gezer  shows  history  in  distinct  lay- 
ers, and  the  layers  themselves  are  in  distinct  groups^*'^  At  the 
bottom  are  layers  Canaanite,  not  Semitic ;  above  these,  layers 
Semitic,  Amorite  giving  place  to  Jewish ;  and  higher  still,  lay- 
ers of  Jewish  culture  of  the  monarchy  and  later  times. 

(b)  The  closing  up  of  the  great  tunnel  to  the  spring 
within  the  fortifications  at  Gezer  is  placed  by  the  layers  of  his- 
tory in  the  rubbish  heaps  at  the  period  of  the  Conquest^"^ 
But  when  a  great  fortification  is  so  ruined  and  the  power  it 
represents  so  destroyed  that  it  loses  sight  of  its  water-supply, 
surely  the  culture  of  the  time  has  had  an  interruption,  though 
it  be  not  much  changed..  Then  this  tunnel,  as  a  great  engineer- 
ing feat,   is  remarkable  testimony  to  the  advanced  state  of 

144 


The  Recent  Testimony  of  Arcliccology 

civilization  at  the  time  of  its  construction ;  but  the  more  re- 
markable the  civilization  it  represents,  the  more  terrible  must 
have  been  the  disturbance  of  the  culture  which  caused  it  to 
be  lost  and  forgotten^'^^ 

(c)  Again,  there  is  apparent  an  enlargement  of  the 
populated  area  of  the  city  of  Gezer  by  encroaching  upon  the 
Temple  area  at  the  period  of  the  Conquest^"'^,  showing  at  once 
the  crowding  into  the  city  of  the  Israelites  without  the  de- 
struction of  the  Canaanites,  as  stated  in  the  Bible,  and  a  cor- 
responding decline  in  reverence  for  the  sacred  inclosure  of  the 
High  Place.  While,  at  a  time  corresponding  to  the  early 
period  of  the  JMonarchy^''^^  there  is  a  sudden  decrease  of  the 
populated  area  corresponding  to  the  destruction  of  the  Ca- 
naanites in  the  city  by  the  father  of  Solomon's  Egyptian 
wife(''>. 

(d)  Of  startling  significance,  the  hypothetical  Musri 
Egypt  in  North  Arabia,  concerning  which  it  has  been  said^*"* 
the  patriarchs  descended  thereto,  the  Israelites  escaped  there- 
from, and  a  princess  thereof  Solomon  married,  has  been  finally 
and  definitely  discredited.  For  Gezer  was  a  marriage  dower 
of  that  princess  whom  Solomon  married^*''^  a  portion  of  her 
father's  dominion,  and  so  a  part  of  the  supposed  Musri,  if  it 
ever  existed,  and  if  so,  at  Gezer,  then,  we  should  find  some 
evidence  of  this  people  and  their  civilization.  Of  such  there 
is  not  a  trace.  But,  instead,  we  find  from  very  early  times, 
but  especially  at  this  time,  Egyptian  remains  in  great 
abundance^"^ 

(e)  Indeed,  even  Egyptian  refinement  and  luxuries  were 
not  incongruous  in  the  Palestine  of  the  Conquest  period.  The 
great  rock-hewn,  and  rock-built  cisterns  at  Taannek^**\  the 
remarkable  engineering  on  the  tunnel  at  Gezer<'''\  the  great 
forty-foot   city    wall    in   an    Egyptian    picture   of    Canaanitt- 

'45 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

war^**^  the  list  of  richest  Canaanite  booty  given  by  Thothmes 
III/*^\  the  fine  ceramic  and  bronze  utensils  and  weapons  re- 
covered from  nearly  every  Palestinian  excavation^"^,  and  the 
literary  revelations  of  the  Amarna  tablets^*^^  together  with 
the  reign  of  law  seen  by  a  comparison  of  the  scriptural  ac- 
count with  the  Code  of  Hammurabi,  show^**^  Canaanite  civil- 
ization of  that  period  to  be  fully  equal  to  that  of  Egypt. 

(f)  Then  the  Bible  glimpses  of  Canaanite  practices  and 
the  products  of  Canaanite  religion  now  uncovered  exactly 
agree.  The  mystery  of  the  High  Place  of  the  Bible  narrative, 
with  its  sacred  caves,  lies  bare  at  Gezer  and  Taannek.  The 
sacrifice  of  infants,  probably  first-born,  and  the  foundation 
and  other  sacrifices  of  children,  either  infant  or  partly  grown, 
appear  in  all  their  ghastliness  in  various  places  at  Gezer  and 
"practically  all  over  the  hill"  at  Taannek^*'^ 

(g)  But  the  most  remarkable  testimony  of  archaeology 
of  this  period  is  to  the  Scripture  representations  of  the  spirit- 
ual monotheism  of  Israel  in  its  conflict  with  the  horrible  idola- 
trous polytheism  of  the  Canaanites,  the  final  overthrow  of  the 
latter  and  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  former.  The  history 
of  that  conflict  is  as  plainly  written  at  Gezer  in  the  gradual 
decline  of  the  High  Place  and  giving  way  of  the  revolting  sac- 
rifice of  children  to  the  bowl  and  lamp  deposit  as  it  is  in  the 
inspired  account  of  Joshua,  Judges  and  Samuel.  And  the  line 
that  marks  oflf  the  territory  of  divine  revelation  in  religion 
from  the  impinging  heathenism  round  about  is  as  distinct  as 
that  line  ofif  the  coast  of  Newfoundland  where  the  cold  waters 
of  the  North  beat  against  the  warm,  life-giving  flow  of  the 
Gulf  Stream.  The  revelation  of  the  spade  in  Palestine  is 
making  to  stand  out  every  day  more  clearly  the  revelation  that 
God  made.    There  is  no  evidence  of  a  purer  religion  growing 

146 


The  Recent  Testimony  of  Archccology 

up  out  of  that  vile  culture^  but  rather  of  a  purer  religion  com- 
ing down  and  overwhelming  it. 

2.  Another  and  still  more  important  question  concerning 
Palestine  civilization  is,  What  was  the  source  and  course  of  the 
dominant  civilization  and  especially  the  religious  culture  re- 
flected in  the  Bible  account  of  the  millennium  preceding  and  the 
millennium  succeeding  the  birth  of  Abraham?  Was  it  from 
without  toward  Canaan  or  from  Canaan  outward?  Did  Pal- 
estine in  her  civilization  and  culture  of  those  days,  in  much 
or  in  all,  but  reflect  Babylonia,  or  was  she  a  luminary? 

PALESTINE    AND    BABYLONIA 

The  revision  of  views  concerning  Palestinian  civilization 
forced  by  recent  excavations  at  once  puts  a  bold  interrogation 
point  to  the  opinion  long  accepted  by  many  of  the  source  and 
course  of  religious  influence  during  this  formative  period  of 
patriarchal  history,  and  the  time  of  the  working  out  of  the 
principles  of  Israel's  religion  into  the  practices  of  Israel's 
life.  If  the  Palestinian  civilization  during  this  period  was 
equal  to  that  of  Egypt,  and  so  certainly  not  inferior  to  that 
of  Babylonia,  then  the  opinion  that  the  flow  of  religious  influ- 
ence w-as  then  from  Babylonia  to  Palestine  must  stand  for  its 
defense.  Here  arises  the  new^est  problem  of  biblical  archae- 
ology. 

And  one  of  the  most  expert  cuneiform  scholars  of  the 
day,  Albert  T.  Clay^''"^  has  essayed  this  problem  and  announces 
a  revolutionary  solution  of  it  by  a  new  interpretation  of  well- 
known  material  as  well  as  the  interpretation  of  newly  acquired 
material.  The  solution  is  nothing  less,  indeed,  than  that  in- 
stead of  the  source  of  religious  influence  being  Babylonia,  and 
its   early  course   from   Babylonia   into   Palestine,   exactly  the 

H7 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

reverse  is  true.  "That  the  Semitic  Babylonian  religion  is  an 
importation  from  Syria  and  Palestine  (Amurru),  that  the  crea- 
tion, deluge,  ante-diluvian  patriarchs,  etc.,  of  the  Babylonian 
came  from  Amurru,  instead  of  the  Hebraic  stories  having 
come  from  Babylonia,  as  held  by  nearly  all  Semitic  scholars." 
This  is  startling  and  far  reaching  in  its  consequences. 
Clay's  work  must  be  put  to  the  test ;  and  so  it  v^ill  be,  before 
it  can  be  finally  accepted.  It  has,  however,  this  initial  ad- 
vantage, that  it  is  in  accord  with  the  apparent  self-conscious- 
ness of  the  Scripture  writers  and,  as  we  have  seen,  exactly  in 
the  direction  in  which  recent  discoveries  in  Palestinian  civiliza- 
tion point. 

IV.      PALESTINE    AND    EGYPT. 

Again  archcsology  has  of  late  furnished  illumination  of 
certain  special  questions  of  both  Old  and  New  Testament 
criticism. 

I.  "Light  from  Babylonia,"  by  L.  W.  King(">  of  the 
British  Museum  on  the  chronology  of  the  first  three  dynasties 
helps  to  determine  the  date  of  Hammurabi,  and  so  of  Abra- 
ham's call  and  of  the  Exodus,  and,  indeed,  has  introduced  a 
corrective  element  into  the  chronology  of  all  subsequent  his- 
tory down  to  the  time  of  David  and  exerts  a  far-reaching 
influence  upon  many  critical  questions  in  which  the  chrono- 
losfical  element  is  vital. 


'is- 


SACRIFICE  IN   EGYPT 


2.  The  entire  absence  from  the  offerings  of  old  Egyptian 
religion  of  any  of  the  great  Pentateuchal  ideas  of  sacrifice, 
substitution,  atonement,  dedication,  fellowship,  and,  indeed,  of 
almost  every  essential  idea  of  real  sacrifice,  as  clearly  estab- 

J48 


The  Recent  Testimony  of  ArcJiccology 

lished  by  recent  very  exhaustive  examination  of  the  offering 
scenes^"\  makes  for  the  element  of  revelation  in  the  Mosaic 
system  by  delimiting  the  field  of  rationalistic  speculation  on  the 
Egyptian  side.  Egypt  gave  nothing  to  that  system,  for  she 
had  nothing  to  give. 

THE  FUTURE  LIFE  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH 

3.  Then  the  grossly  materialistic  character  of  the  Egyp- 
tian conception  of  the  other  world  and  of  the  future  life,  and 
the  fact,  every  day  becoming  clearer,  that  the  so-called  and 
so-much-talked-about  resurrection  in  the  belief  of  the  Egyp- 
tians was  not  a  resurrection  at  all,  but  a  resuscitation  to  the 
same  old  life  on  **oxen,  geese,  bread,  wine,  beer,  and  all  good 
things,"  is  furnishing  a  most  complete  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem of  the  obscurity  of  the  idea  of  the  resurrection  in  the 
Pentateuchal  documents.  For,  whether  they  came  from  j\Ioses 
when  he  had  just  come  from  Egypt  or  are  by  some  later  author 
attributed  to  Moses,  when  he  had  just  come  from  Egypt,  the 
problem  is  the  same :  Why  is  the  idea  of  the  resurrection  so 
obscure  in  the  Pentateuch?  Now  to  have  put  forth  in  revela- 
tion the  idea  of  the  resurrection  at  that  time,  before  the 
growth  of  spiritual  ideas  of  God  and  of  worship  here,  of  the 
other  world  and  the  future  life  there,  and  before  the  people 
under  the  influence  of  these  new  ideas  had  outgrown  their 
Egyptian  training,  would  have  carried  over  into  Israel's  re- 
ligious thinking  all  the  low,  degrading  materialism  of  Egyp- 
tian belief  on  this  subject.  The  Mosaic  system  made  no  use 
of  Egy^ptian  belief  concerning  the  future  life  because  it  was  not 
by  it  usable,  and  it  kept  away  from  open  presentation  of  the 
subject  altogether,  because  that  was  the  only  way  to  get  thr 
people  away  from  Egypt's  conception  of  the  subject. 

149 


The  Higher  Criticism   and   The  New  Theology 

WELLHAUSEX'S    MISTAKE 

4.  The  discovery  of  the  Aramaic  papyri  at  Syene^"^ 
made  possible  a  new  chapter  in  Old  Testament  criticism,  raised 
to  a  high  pitch  hopes  for  contemporary  testimony  on  Old 
Testament  history  which  hitherto  hardly  dared  raise  their 
heads,  and  contributed  positive  evidence  on  a  number  of  im- 
portant points.  Tolerable,  though  not  perfect,  identifications 
are  made  out  for  Bagoas,  Governor  of  the  Jews ;  of  Josephus 
and  Diodorus;  Sanballat,  of  Nehemiah  and  Josephus;  and 
Jochanan,  of  Nehemiah  and  Josephus.  But  more  important 
than  all  these  identifications  is  the  information  that  the  Jews 
had,  at  that  period,  built  a  temple  and  offered  sacrifice  far 
from  Jerusalem.  Wellhausen^"*^  lays  down  the  first  stone 
of  the  foundation  of  his  Pentateuchal  criticism  in  these  words : 
"The  returning  exiles  were  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  ideas 
of  Josiah's  reformation  and  had  no  thought  of  worshiping 
except  in  Jerusalem.  It  cost  them  no  sacrifice  of  their  feel- 
ings to  leave  the  ruined  High  Places  unbuilt.  From  this  date, 
all  Jews  understood,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  the  one  God 
had  only  one  sanctuary."  So  much  Wellhausen.  But  here 
is  this  petition  of  the  Jews  at  Syene  in  the  year  407  B.  C.  after 
Nehemiah's  return  declaring  that  they  had  built  a  temple  there 
r.nd  established  a  system  of  worship  and  of  sacrifices,  and  evi- 
dencing also  that  they  expected  the  approval  of  the  Jews  at 
Jerusalem  in  rebuilding  that  temple  and  re-establishing  that 
sacrificial  worship,  and,  what  is  more,  received  from  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  Jews  permission  so  to  do,  a  thing  which,  had  it 
been  opposed  by  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem  was  utterly  incon- 
sistent with  the  Jewish  policy  of  the  Persian  Empire  in  the 
days   of   Nehemiah, 

150 


The  Recent  Testimony  of  Archaeology 

NEW   TESTAMENT   GREEK 

5.  Then  the  redating  of  the  Hermetic  wrltings^^  where- 
by they  are  thrown  back  from  the  Christian  era  to  500-300 
B.  C.  opens  up  a  completely  new  source  of  critical  material  for 
tracing  the  rise  and  progress  of  theological  terms  in  the 
Alexandrian  Greek  of  the  New  Testament.  In  a  recent  letter 
from  Petrie,  who  has  written  a  little  book  on  the  subject,  he 
sums  up  the  whole  case,  as  he  sees  it,  in  these  words :  "My 
position  simply  is  that  the  current  religious  phrases  and  ideas 
of  the  B.  C.  age  must  be  grasped  in  order  to  understand 
the  usages  of  religious  language  in  which  the  New  Testament 
is  written.  And  we  can  never  know  the  real  motive  of  New 
Testament  writings  until  we  know  how  much  is  new  thought 
and  how  much  is  current  theology  in  terms  of  which  the 
Eu-angelos  is  expressed."  Whether  or  not  all  the  new  dates 
for  the  writings  shall  be  permitted  to  stand,  and  Petrie's  point 
of  view  be  justified,  a  discussion  of  the  dates  and  a  criti- 
cal examination  of  the  Hermetic  writings  from  the  stand- 
point of  their  corrected  dates  alone  can  determine;  but  it  is 
certain  that  the  products  of  the  examination  cannot  but  be 
far  reaching  in  their  influence  and  in  the  illumination  of 
the  teachings  of  Christ  and  tne  Aposiles. 

V.      IDENTIFICATIONS 

Last  and  more  generally,  of  recent  testimony  from  archae- 
ology to  Scripture  we  must  consider  the  identification  of 
places,  peoples,  and  events  of  the  Bible  narrative. 

For  many  years  archaeologists  looked  up  helplessly  at  the 
pinholes  in  the  pediment  of  the  Parthenon,  vainly  speculating 

151 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  Nezv  Theology 

about  what  might  liave  been  the  important  announcement  in 
bronze  once  fastened  at  those  pinholes.  At  last  an  ingenious 
young  American  student  carefully  copied  the  pinholes,  and 
from  a  study  of  the  collocation  divined  at  last  the  whole  im- 
perial Roman  decree  once  fastened  there.  So,  isolated  identi- 
fication of  people,  places,  and  events  in  the  Bible  may  not 
mean  so  much ;  however  startling  their  character,  they  may  be, 
after  all,  only  pinholes  in  the  mosaic  of  Bible  history,  but  the 
collocation  of  these  identifications,  when  many  of  them  have 
been  found,  indicates  at  last  the  whole  pattern  of  the  mosaic. 

Now  the  progress  of  important  identifications  has  of  late 
been  very  rapid.  It  will  sufl^ice  only  to  mention  those  which 
we  have  already  studied  for  their  intrinsic  importance  together 
with  the  long  list  of  others  wnthin  recent  years.  In  1874, 
Clermont-Ganneau  discovered  one  of  the  boundary  stones  of 
Gezer^'^  at  which  place  now  for  six  years  Mr.  R.  A.  Stew- 
art Macalister  has  been  uncovering  the  treasures  of  history  of 
that  Levitical  city^"^ ;  in  1906,  Winckler  discovered  the  Hit- 
tites  at  their  capital  city;  in  1904-5,  Schumacker  explored 
Megiddo;  in  1900-02,  Sellin,  Taannek;  Jericho  has  now  been 
accurately  located  by  Sellin  and  the  foundations  of  her  walls 
laid  bare;  the  Edomites,  long  denied  existence  in  patriarchal 
times,  have  been  given  historical  place  in  the  time  of  Meremp- 
tah  by  the  papyrus  Anastasia^^^ ;  Moab,  for  some  time  past 
in  dispute,  I  identified  beyond  further  controversy  at  Luxor  in 
1908,  in  an  inscription  of  Rameses  II.,  before  the  time  of  the 
Exodus^"") ;  while  Hilprecht  at  Nippur<~^  Glaser  in  Arabia<"^ 
Petrie  at  Maghereh  and  along  the  route  of  the  Exodus^^  and 
Reisner  at  Samaria  have  been  adding  a  multitude  of  geo- 
graphical, ethnographical  and  historical  identifications. 

The  completion  of  tly^  whole  list  of  identifications  is  rap* 

^52 


The  Recent  Testimony  of  Archccology 

idly  approaching,  and  the  collocation  of  these  identifications 
has  given  us  anew,  from  entirely  independent  testimony  of 
archaeology,  the  whole  outline  of  the  biblical  narrative  and  its 
surroundings,  at  once  the  necessary  material  for  the  his- 
torical imagination  and  the  surest  foundation  of  apologetics. 
Fancy  for  a  moment  that  the  peoples,  places  and  events  of  the 
wanderings  of  Ulysses  should  be  identified :  all  the  strange 
route  of  travel  followed ;  the  remarkable  lands  visited  and  de- 
scribed, the  curious  creatures,  half  human  and  half  monstrous, 
and  even  unmistakable  traces  of  strange  events,  found,  all  just 
as  the  poet  imagined,  what  a  transformation  in  our  views  of 
Homer's  great  epic  must  take  place !  Henceforth  that  romance 
would  be  history.  Let  us  reverse  the  process  and  fancy  that 
the  peoples,  places,  and  events  of  the  Bible  story  were  as  lit- 
tle known  from  independent  sources  as  the  wanderings  of 
Ulysses ;  the  intellectual  temper  of  this  age  would  unhesitat- 
ingly put  the  Bible  story  in  the  same  mythical  category  in 
which  have  always  been  the  romances  of  Homer.  If  it  were 
possible  to  blot  out  biblical  geography,  biblical  ethnology,  and 
biblical  history  from  the  realm  of  exact  knowledge,  so  would 
we  put  out  the  eyes  of  faith,  henceforth  our  religion  would  be 
blind,  stone  blind. 

Thus  the  value  of  the  rapid  progress  of  identifications 
appears.  It  is  the  identifications  w^hich  differentiate  history 
from  myth,  geography  from  the  ''land  of  nowhere,"  the  rec- 
ord of  events  from  tales  of  "never  was,"  Scripture  from  folk- 
lore, and  the  Gospel  of  the  Saviour  of  the  world  from  the  de- 
lusions of  hope.  Every  identification  limits  by  so  much  the 
field  of  historical  criticism.  When  the  progress  of  identifica- 
tion shall  reach  completion,  the  work  of  historical  criticism 
will  be  finished. 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 
CONCLUSION 


The  present  status  of  the  testimony  from  archaeology  to 
Scripture,  as  these  latest  discoveries  make  it  to  be,  may  be 
Dointed  out  in  a  few  words. 

NOT    EVOLUTION 

1.  The  history  of  civilization  as  everywhere  illuminated 
is  found  to  be  only  partially  that  of  the  evolutionary  theory 
of  early  Israelite  history,  but  very  exactly  that  of  the  biblical 
narrative ;  that  is  to  say,  this  history,  like  all  history,  sacred  or 
profane,  shows  at  times,  for  even  a  century  or  two,  steady 
progress,  but  the  regular,  orderly  progress  from  the  most 
primitive  state  of  society  toward  the  highest  degree  of  civiliza- 
tion, which  the  evolutionary  theory  imperatively  demands,  if 
it  fulfill  its  intended  mission,  fails  utterly.  The  best  ancient 
work  at  Taannek  is  the  earliest.  From  the  cave  dwellers  to 
the  city  builders  at  Gezer  is  no  long,  gentle  evolution ;  the 
early  Amorite  civilization  leaps  with  rapid  strides  to  the  great 
engineering  feats  on  the  defenses  and  the  water-works. 
Wherever  it  has  been  possible  to  institute  comparison  between 
Palestine  and  Egypt,  the  Canaanite  civilization  in  handicraft, 
art,  engineering,  architecture,  and  education  has  been  found 
to  suffer  only  by  that  which  climate,  materials  and  location 
impose ;  in  genius  and  in  practical  execution  it  is  equal  to  that 
of  Egypt,  and  only  eclipsed,  before  Graeco-Roman  times,  by 
the  brief  glory  of  the  Solomonic  period. 

HARMONY    WITH    SCRIPTURE 

2.  When  we  come  to  look  more  narrowly  at  the  details 
of  archaeological  testimony,  the  historical  setting  thus  afforded 

154 


Tlie  Recent  Testimony  of  Archceology 

for  the  events  of  the  Bible  narrative  is  seen  to  be  exactly  in 
harmony  with  the  narrative.  This  is  very  significant  of  the 
final  outcome  of  research  in  early  Bible  history.  Because 
views  of  Scripture  must  finally  square  with  the  results  of 
archaeology,  that  is  to  say,  with  contemporaneous  history ;  and 
tlie  archaeological  testimony  of  these  past  five  years  well  in- 
dicates the  present  trend  toward  the  final  conclusion.  The 
Bible  narrative  plainly  interpreted  at  its  face  value  is  every- 
where being  sustained,  while,  of  the  great  critical  theories  pro- 
posing to  take  Scripture  recording  events  of  that  age  at  other 
than  the  face  value,  as  the  illiteracy  of  early  Western  Semitic 
people,  the  rude  nomadic  barbarity  of  Palestine  and  the  Desert 
in  the  patriarchal  age,  the  patriarchs  not  individuals  but  per- 
sonifications, the  Desert  "Egypt,"  the  gradual  invasion  of  Pal- 
estine, the  naturalistic  origin  of  Israel's  religion,  the  incon- 
sequence of  Moses  as  a  law-giver,  the  late  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch,  and  a  dozen  others,  not  a  single  one  is  being  defi- 
nitely supported  by  the  results  of  archaeological  research.  In- 
deed, reconstructing  criticism  hardly  finds  it  worth  while,  for 
the  most  part,  to  look  to  archaeology  for  support. 

The  recent  testimony  of  archaeology  to  Scripture,  like  all 
such  testimony  that  has  gone  before,  is  definitely  and  uni- 
formly favorable  to  the  Scriptures  at  their  face  value,  and  not 
to   the   Scriptures   as    reconstructed   by   criticism. 


AUTHORITIES    REFERRED    TO    ABOVE 

ABBREVIATIONS     USED     IN     REFERENCES 

O.  L.  Z.^Orientalistischen  Litteratur-Zeitung. 
Q.  S.=Quarterly  Statement  of  the  Palestine  Exploration  So- 
ciety. 

155 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theology 


REFERENCES 

(i)     Gen.  12:10-20;  13:1 ;  47:1-12. 

(2)  Gen.  41  :i4-46. 

(3)  Orr,  "The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament,"  pp.  57-58, 

quoting  Schulz,  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  W.  R.  Smith, 
G.  B.  Gray,  H.  P.  Smith,  F.  H.  Woods. 

(4)  Brugsch,  "Egypt  under  the  Pharaohs,"  Broderick  edi- 

tion, Qiap.  VI. 

(5)  Ibid. 

(6)  Gen.  41 :25-39. 

(7)  Petrie,  "Hyksos  and  Israelite  Cities." 

(8)  Ibid,  pp.  3  and  10,  Plate  IX. 

(9)  Ibid,  pp.  5-9.    Plates  II,  III,  IV. 

(10)  Budge,  "History  of  Egypt,"  Vcl.  Ill,  pp.  137-138. 

(11)  Kyle,  Recueil   de  Travaux,   \d.   XXX,   ^'Geographic 

and  Ethnic  Lists  of  Rameses  II.'' 

(12)  Miiller,  "Asien  und  Europa,"  2*"  Kapitel. 

(13)  Ibid. 

(14)  Winckler,  O.  L.  Z.,  December  15,  1906. 

(15)  Ibid. 

(16)  Bouriant,  Recueil  de  Travaux,  Vol.  XIII,  pp.   15  ff.; 

Budge,  "History  of  Egypt,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  48  ff. ;  Good- 
win, "Records  of  the  Past,"  ist  Series,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 

25  ff. 

(17)  Mitteilungen  der  Vorderasiatischen  Gesselschaft :  1902, 

p.  5.    Miiller,  Recueil  de  Travaux,  Vol.  VIII,  126  ff. 
Budge,  "History  of  Egypt,"  V,  30  ff. 

(18)  Winckler,  O.  L.  Z.,  December  15,  1906.     (Sonderabzug, 

P-   15.) 

(19)  Ibid.     (Sonderabzug,  p.  22.) 

156 


The  Recent  Testimony  of  ArchcBology 

(20)  Conder.     "Tel  Amarna  Tablets."     Budge,  "History  of 

Egypt,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  184-241. 

(21)  Winckler,  O.  L.  Z.,  December  15,  1906.     Sonderabzug. 

(22)  Messersmidt,  Mitteilungen  der  Vorderasiatischen  Ges- 

selschaft;  Corpus,  Unscrip.  Het. — 1902. 

(23)  Vincent,  "Canaan." 

(24)  Petrie,  "Lachish." 

(25)  Bliss,  "A  Mound  of  Many  Cities." 

(26)  Macalister,    "Bible   Side    Lights    from    the   Mound   of 

Gezer." 
(2y)     Schumacker,    "Excavations   at   IMegiddo." 

(28)  Sellin,   Tel-Taannek,   "Denkschriften  der   Kaiserlichen 

Akademie  in  Wien." 

(29)  Deut.  6:10-11;  Josh.  24:13;  Neh.  9:25. 

(30)  Isa.  19:18. 

(31)  Ezek.  16:44-46;  Deut.  y:^. 

(32)  Judges  2:11-15;  37;  8:33-35;  18:30-31. 

(33)  I^Iacalister,  Q.  S.,  1903,   pp.   8-9,   49. 

(34)  Macalister,  Q.  S.,  1908,  p.  17. 

(35)  Vincent,  in  Q.  S.,  1908,  p.  228. 

(36)  Macalister,  Q.  S.,  1903,  p.  49. 

(37)  Ibid. 

(38)  I  Kings  9:16. 

(39)  Winckler,  Orientalistische  Forschungen,  Series  I,  pp. 

24-41. 

'(40)  I.  Kings  9:16. 

(41)  Macalister,  O.  S.,  1903,  p.  309. 

(42)  Sellin,  "Tel-Taannek,"  p.  92. 

(43)  Macalister,  Q.  S.,  1908,  Jan.-Apr. 

(44)  Petrie,  "Deshasha,"  Plate  IV. 

(45)  Birch,  "Records  of  the  Past,"   ist  Series,  Vol.  II,  pp. 

33-52,  "Battle  of  Megiddo."     Also  Lepsius,  "Penk- 

'57 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Nezu  Theology 

maler."    Abth.  III.     Bl.  32,  31st,  30th,  30B,  "Aus- 
wahl,"  XII,  L.  42-45. 

(46)  Macalister- Vincent,  Q.  S.,  1898-1908. 

(47)  Budge,  "History  of  Egypt,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  184-241. 

(48)  Gen.  21-38.     King,  "Code  of  Hammurabi." 

(49)  Macalister,  Q.  S.,  1903,  ff.,  and  "Bible  Side  Lights," 

Chap.  III.    Also  Sellin,  "Tel-Taannek,"  pp.  96-97. 

(50)  Clay,  "Amurru,  The  Home  of  the  Northern  Semites." 

(51)  King,  "Chronology  of  the  First  Three  Babylonian  Dy- 

nasties." 

(52)  Kyle,  Recueil  de  Travaux.    "Egyptian  Sacrifices."  Vol. 

XXVII,  "Further  Observations,"  Vol.  XXXI.     Bib- 
liotheca  Sacra,  Apr.,  1905,  pp.  323-336. 

(53)  Margoliouth,  "Expository  Times,"  December,  1907.  Jo- 

sephus,  "Antiquities,"   11:7;  Deodorus  Sicinus,  Sec. 
3;  17-35  J  Neh.  11:28:12-22.    Esdras  5:14. 

(54)  Wellhausen,  Ency.  Brit.,  Vol.  18,  p.  509. 

(55)  Petric,    "Personal    Religion    in    Egypt   before   Chris- 

tianity." 

(56)  Qermont-Ganneau,  in  "Bible  Side  Lights,"  p.  22. 

(57)  Macalister,  "Bible   Side   Lights."     Also  Q.   S.,    1902- 

09. 

(58)  Miiller,  "Asien  und  Europa." 

(59)  Kyle,  Recueil  de  Travaux,  Vol.  XXX.     "Ethnic  and 

Geographical  Lists  of  Rameses  II." 

(60)  Hilprecht,  "Explorations  in  Babylonia." 

(61)  Weber,     Forschungsreisen — Edouard     Glaser.       Also 
"Studien       zur        Siidarabischen       Altertumskunde," 

Weber. 

(62)  Petrie,  "Researches  in  Sinai." 


J^S 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  INSPIRATION  OF  THE   BIBLE— DEFINITION, 
EXTENT  AND  PROOF 

BY  DR.    JAMES   M.    GRAY, 
DEAN   OF  MOODY   BIBLE   INSTITUTE,   CHICAGO,   ILL. 

In  this  paper  the  authenticity  and  credibiHty  of  the  Bible 
are  assumed,  by  which  is  meant  ( i ) ,  that  its  books  were  writ- 
ten by  the  authors  to  whom  they  are  ascribed,  and  that  their 
contents  are  in  all  material  points  as  when  they  came  from 
their  hands;  and  (2),  that  those  contents  are  worthy  of  entire 
acceptance  as  to  their  statements  of  fact.  Were  there  need 
to  prove  these  assumptions,  the  evidence  is  abundant,  and 
abler  pens  have  dealt  with  it. 

Let  it  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  because  these  things 
are  assumed  their  relative  importance  is  undervalued.  On 
the  contrary,  they  underlie  inspiration,  and,  as  President  Pat- 
ton  says,  come  in  on  the  ground  floor.  They  have  to  do  with 
the  historicity  of  the  Bible,  which  for  us  just  now  is  the 
basis  of  its  authority.  Nothing  can  be  settled  until  this  is 
settled,  but  admitting  its  settlement  which,  all  things  con- 
sidered, we  now  may  be  permitted  to  do,  what  can  be  of 
deeper  interest  than  the  question  as  to  how  far  that  authority 
extends? 

This  is  the  inspiration  question,  and  while  so  many  have 
taken  in  hand  to  discuss  the  ethers,  may  not  one  be  at  liberty 

159 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theology 

to  discuss  this?  It  is  an  old  question,  so  old,  indeed,  as  again 
in  the  usual  recurrence  of  thought  to  become  new.  Our 
fathers  discussed  it,  it  was  the  great  question  once  upon  a 
time,  it  was  sifted  to  the  bottom,  and  a  great  storehouse 
of  fact,  and  argument,  and  illustration  has  been  left  for  us  to 
draw  upon  in  a  day  of  need. 

For  a  long  while  the  enemy's  attack  has  directed  our  ener- 
gies to  another  part  of  the  field,  but  victory  there  will  drive 
us  back  here  again.  The  other  questions  are  outside  of  the 
Bible  itself,  this  is  inside.  They  lead  men  away  from  the  con- 
tents of  the  book  to  consider  how  they  came,  this  brings  us 
back  to  consider  what  they  are.  Happy  the  day  when  the  in- 
quiry returns  here,  and  happy  the  generation  which  has  not 
forgotten  how  to  meet  it. 

I.      DEFINITION    OF    INSPIRATION 

1.  Inspiration  is  not  revelation.  As  Dr.  Charles  Hodge 
expressed  it,  revelation  is  the  art  of  communicating  divine 
knowledge  to  the  mind,  but  inspiration  is  the  act  of  the  same 
Spirit  controlling  those  who  make  that  knowledge  known  to 
others.  In  Chalmer's  happy  phrase,  the  one  is  the  influx,  the 
other  the  efflux.  Abraham  received  the  influx,  he  was  granted 
a  revelation ;  but  Moses  was  endued  with  the  efflux,  being  in- 
spired to  record  it  for  our  learning.  In  the  one  case  there  was 
a  flowing  in  and  in  the  other  a  flowing  out.  Sometimes  both 
of  these  experiences  met  in  the  same  person,  indeed  Moses 
himself  is  an  illustration  of  it,  having  received  a  revelation  at 
another  time  and  also  the  inspiration  to  make  it  known,  but  it 
is  of  importance  to  distinguish  between  the  two. 

2.  Inspiration  is  not   illumination.     Every  regenerated 


The  Ifispiration  of  ilic  Bible 

Christian  is  illuminated  in  the  simple  fact  that  he  is  indwelt 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  every  such  an  one  is  not  also  inspired, 
but  only  the  writers  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Spir- 
itual illumination  is  subject  to  degrees,  some  Christians  pos- 
sessing more  of  it  than  others,  but,  as  we  understand  it,  inspi- 
ration is  not  subject  to  degrees,  being  in  every  case  the  breath 
of  God,  expressing  itself  through  a  human  personality. 

3.  Inspiration  is  not  human  genius.  The  latter  is  simply 
a  natural  qualification,  however  exalted  it  may  be  in  some 
cases,  but  inspiration  in  the  sense  now  spoken  of  is  super- 
natural throughout.  It  is  an  enduement  coming  upon  the 
writers  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  directing  and  ena- 
bling them  to  write  those  books,  and  on  no  other  men,  and  at 
no  other  time,  and  for  no  other  purpose.  No  human  genius 
of  whom  we  ever  heard  introduced  his  writings  with  the 
formula,  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  or  words  to  that  effect,  and 
yet  such  is  the  common  utterance  of  the  Bible  authors.  No 
human  genius  ever  yet  agreed  with  any  other  human  genius 
as  to  the  things  it  most  concerns  men  to  know,  and,  there- 
fore, however  exalted  his  equipment,  it  differs  not  merely  in 
degree  but  in  kind  from  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

In  its  mode  the  divine  agency  is  inscrutable,  though  its 
effects  are  knowable.  We  do  not  undertake  to  say  just  how 
the  Holy  Spirit  operated  on  the  minds  of  these  authors  to  pro- 
duce these  books  any  more  than  we  undertake  to  say  how  He 
operates  on  the  human  heart  to  produce  conversion,  but  we 
accept  the  one  as  we  do  the  other  on  the  testimony  that 
appeals  to  faith. 

4.  When  we  speak  of  the  Holy  Spirit  coming  upon  the 
men  in  order  to  the  composition  of  the  books,  it  should  be 
further  understood  that  the  object  is  not  the  inspiration  of 

161 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

the  men  hut  the  books — not  the  writers  but  the  writings.  It 
terminates  upon  the  record,  in  other  words,  and  not  upon  the 
human  instrument  who  made  it. 

To  illustrate :  Moses,  David,  Paul,  John,  were  not  always 
and  everywhere  inspired,  for  then  always  and  everywhere 
they  would  have  been  infallible  and  inerrant,  which  was  not 
the  case.  They  sometimes  made  mistakes  in  thought  and 
erred  in  conduct.  But  however  fallible  and  errant  they  may 
have  been  as  men  compassed  with  infirmity  Hke  ourselves, 
such  fallibility  or  errancy  was  never  under  any  circumstances 
communicated  to  their  sacred  writings. 

Ecclesiastes  is  a  case  in  point,  which  on  the  supposition  of 
its  Solomonic  authorship,  is  giving  us  a  history  of  his  search 
for  happiness  "under  the  sun."  Some  statements  in  that 
book  are  only  partially  true,  while  others  are  altogether  false, 
therefore  it  cannot  mean  that  Solomon  was  inspired  as  he 
tried  this  or  that  experiment  to  find  what  no  man  has  been 
able  to  find  outside  of  God.  But  it  means  that  his  language 
is  inspired  as  he  records  the  various  feelings  and  opinions 
which  possessed  him  in  the  pursuit. 

This  disposes  of  a  large  class  of  objections  sometimes 
brought  against  the  doctrine  of  inspiration — those,  for  exam- 
ple, associated  with  the  question  as  to  whether  the  Bible  is 
the  Word  of  God  or  only  contains  that  Word.  If  by  the 
former  be  meant  that  God  spake  every  word  in  the  Bible, 
and  hence  that  every  word  is  true,  the  answer  must  be  no; 
but  if  it  be  meant  that  God  caused  every  word  in  the  Bible, 
true  or  false,  to  be  recorded,  the  answer  should  be  yes.  There 
are  words  of  Satan  in  the  Bible,  words  of  false  prophets, 
words  of  the  enemies  of  Christ,  and  yet  they  are  God's  words, 
not  in  the  sense  that  He  uttered  them,  but  that  He  caused 

102 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

them  to  be  recorded,  infallibly  and  inerrantly  recorded,  for  our 
profit.  In  this  sense  the  Bible  does  not  merely  contain  the 
Word  of  God,  it  is  the  Word  of  God. 

Of  any  merely  human  author  it  is  the  same.  This  paper 
is  the  writer's  word  throughout,  and  yet  he  may  quote  what 
other  people  say  to  commend  them  or  dispute  them.  What 
they  say  he  records,  and  in  doing  so  he  makes  the  record  his 
in  the  sense  that  he  is  responsible  for  its  accuracy. 

5.  Let  it  be  stated  further  in  this  definitional  connec- 
tion, that  the  record  for  whose  inspiration  we  contend  is  the 
original  record — the  autographs  or  parchments  of  Moses, 
David,  Daniel,  Matthew,  Paul  or  Peter,  as  the  case  may  be, 
and  not  any  particular  translation  or  translations  of  them 
whatever.  There  is  no  translation  absolutely  without  error, 
nor  could  there  be,  considering  the  infirmities  of  human  copy- 
ists, unless  God  were  pleased  to  perform  a  perpetual  miracle 
to  secure  it. 

But  does  this  make  nugatory  our  contention?  Some 
would  say  it  does,  and  they  would  argue  speciously  that  to 
insist  on  the  inerrancy  of  a  parchment  no  living  being  has 
ever  seen  is  an  academic  question  merely,  and  without  value. 
But  do  they  not  fail  to  see  that  the  character  and  perfection 
of  the  God-head  are  involved  in  that  inerrancy? 

Some  years  ago  a  "liberal"  theologian,  deprecating  this 
discussion  as  not  worth  while,  remarked  that  it  was  a  matter 
of  small  consequence  whether  a  pair  of  trousers  was  origin- 
ally perfect  if  they  were  now  rent.  To  which  the  valiant 
and  witty  David  James  Burrell  replied,  that  it  might  be  a 
matter  of  small  consequence  to  the  wearer  of  the  trousers, 
but  the  tailor  who  made  them  would  prefer  to  have  it  under- 
stood that  they  did  not  leave  his  shop  that  way.    And  then 

163 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

he  added,  that  if  the  Most  High  must  train  among  knights 
of  the  shears  He  might  at  least  be  regarded  as  the  best  of 
the  guild,  and  One  who  drops  no  stitches  and  sends  out  no 
imperfect  work. 

Is  it  not  with  the  written  Word  as  with  the  incarnate 
Word?  Is  Jesus  Christ  to  be  regarded  as  imperfect  because 
His  character  has  never  been  perfectly  reproduced  before 
us?  Can  He  be  the  incarnate  Word  unless  He  were  abso- 
lutely without  sin?  And  by  the  same  token,  can  the  scrip- 
tures be  the  written  Word  unless  they  were  inerrant? 

But  if  this  question  be  so  purely  speculative  and  value- 
less, what  becomes  of  the  science  of  Biblical  criticism  by 
which  properly  we  set  such  store  to-day?  Do  builders  drive 
piles  into  the  soft  earth  if  they  never  expect  to  touch  bot- 
tom? Do  scholars  dispute  about  the  scripture  text  and 
minutely  examine  the  history  and  m.eaning  of  single  words, 
"the  delicate  coloring  of  mood,  tense  and  accent,"  if  at  the 
end  there  is  no  approximation  to  an  absolute  ?  As  Dr.  George 
H.  Bishop  says,  does  not  our  concordance,  every  time  we 
take  it  up,  speak  loudly  to  us  of  a  once  inerrant  parchment? 
Why  do  we  not  possess  concordances  for  the  very  words  of 
other  books? 

Nor  is  that  original  parchment  so  remote  a  thing  as  some 
suppose.  Do  not  the  number  and  variety  of  manuscripts  and 
versions  extant  render  it  comparatively  easy  to  arrive  at  a 
knowledge  of  its  text,  and  does  not  competent  scholarship 
to-day  affirm  that  as  to  the  New  Testament  at  least,  we  have  in 
999  cases  out  of  every  thousand  the  very  word  of  that 
original  text?  Let  candid  consideration  be  given  to  these 
things  and  it  will  be  seen  that  we  are  not  pursuing  a  phan- 
tom in  contending  for  an  inspired  autograph  of  the 
Bible. 

164 


The  Inspiraiion  of  the  Bible 

II.      EXTENT  OF   INSPIIL\TION 

I.  The  inspiration  of  scripture  includes  the  whole  and 
every  part  of  it.  There  are  some  who  deny  this  and  limit  it 
to  only  the  prophetic  portions,  the  words  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and,  say,  the  profounder  spiritual  teachings  of  the  epistles. 
The  historical  books  in  their  judgment,  and  as  an  example,  do 
not  require  inspiration  because  their  data  were  obtainable 
from  natural  sources. 

The  Bible  itself,  however,  knows  of  no  limitations,  as 
we  shall  see:  "All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God." 
The  historical  data,  most  of  it  at  least,  might  have  been  ob- 
tained from  natural  sources,  but  what  about  the  supernatural 
guidance  required  in  their  selection  and  narration?  Com- 
pare, for  answer,  the  records  of  creation,  the  fall,  the  deluge, 
etc.,  found  in  Genesis  with  those  recently  discovered  by  ex- 
cavations in  Bible  lands.  Do  not  the  results  of  the  pick-axe 
and  the  spade  point  to  the  same  original  as  the  Bible,  and  yet 
do  not  their  childishness  and  grotesqueness  often  bear  evi- 
dence of  the  human  and  sinful  mould  through  which  they 
ran?  Do  they  not  show  the  need  of  some  power  other  than 
man  himself  to  lead  him  out  of  the  labyrinth  of  error  into  the 
open  ground  of  truth? 

Furthermore,  are  not  the  historical  books  in  some  re- 
spects the  most  important  in  the  Bible?  Are  they  not  the 
bases  of  its  doctrine?  Does  not  the  doctrine  of  sin  need  for 
its  starting  point  the  record  of  the  fall?  Could  we  so  satis- 
factorily understand  justification  did  we  not  have  the  story 
of  God's  dealings  with  Abraham?  And  what  of  the  priest- 
hood of  Christ?  Dismiss  Leviticus  and  what  can  be  made 
of  Hebrews?  Is  not  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  historical,  but 
can  we  afford  to  lose  its  inspiration? 

I6S, 


The  Higher  Criticism  anS  The  New  Theology 

And  then,  too,  the  historical  books  are,  in  many  cases, 
prophetical  as  well  as  historical.  Do  not  the  types  and  sym- 
bols in  them  show  forth  the  Saviour  in  all  the  varying  aspects 
of  His  grace?  Has  not  the  story  of  Israel  the  closest  rela- 
tion as  type  and  anti-type  to  our  spiritual  redemption?  Does 
not  Paul  teach  this  in  i  Cor.,  io:6-ii?  And  if  these  things 
were  thus  written  for  our  learning,  does  not  this  imply  their 
inspiration? 

Indeed,  the  historical  books  have  the  strongest  testimony 
borne  to  their  importance  in  other  parts  of  the  Bible.  This 
will  appear  more  particularly  as  we  proceed,  but  take,  in 
passing,  Christ's  use  of  Deuteronomy  in  His  conflict  with  the 
tempter.  Thrice  does  He  overcome  him  by  a  citation  from 
that  historical  book  without  note  or  comment.  Is  it  not  diffi- 
cult to  believe  that  neither  He  nor  Satan  considered  it  in- 
spired ? 

Thus  without  going  further,  we  may  say,  with  Dr.  De- 
Witt  of  Princeton,  that  it  is  impossible  to  secure  the  religions 
infallibility  of  the  Bible — which  is  all  the  objector  regards  as 
necessary — if  we  exclude  Bible  history  from  the  sphere  of  its 
inspiration.  But  if  we  include  Bible  history  at  all,  we  must 
include  the  whole  of  it,  for  who  is  competent  to  separate  its 
parts? 

2.  The  inspiration  includes  not  only  all  the  books  of  the 
Bible  in  general  but  in  detail,  the  form  as  well  as  the  sub- 
stance, the  word  as  well  as  the  thought.  This  is  sometimes 
called  the  verbal  theory  of  inspiration  and  is  vehemently  spoken 
against  in  some  quarters.  It  is  too  mechanical,  it  degrades 
the  writers  to  the  level  of  machines,  it  has  a  tendency  to  make 
skeptics,  and  all  that. 

This  last  remark,  however,  is  not  so  alarming  as  it 
^unds.    The  doctrine  of  the  eternal  retribution  of  the  wicked 

i66 


The  I  Its  pi  ration  of  the  Bible 

13  said  to  make  skeptics,  and  also  that  of  a  vicarious  atone- 
ment, not  to  mention  other  revelations  of  Holy  Writ.  The 
natural  mind  takes  to  none  of  these  things.  But  if  we  are 
not  prepared  to  yield  the  point  in  one  case  for  such  a  reason, 
why  should  we  be  asked  to  do  it  in  another? 

And  as  to  degrading  the  writers  to  the  level  of  machines, 
even  if  it  were  true,  as  it  is  not,  why  should  fault  be  found 
when  one  considers  the  result?  Which  is  the  more  impor- 
tant, the  free  agency  of  a  score  or  two  of  mortals,  or  the 
divinity  of  their  message?  The  whole  argument  is  just  a 
spark  from  the  anvil  on  which  the  race  is  ever  trying  to 
hammer  out  the  deiiication  of  itself. 

But  we  are  insisting  upon  no  theory — not  even  the  verbal 
theory — if  it  altogether  excludes  the  human  element  in  the 
transmission  of  the  sacred  word.  As  Dr.  Henry  B.  Smith 
says,  "God  speaks  through  the  personality  as  well  as  the  lips 
of  His  messengers,"  and  we  may  pour  into  that  word  "per- 
sonality" everything  that  goes  to  make  it — the  age  in  which 
the  person  lived,  his  environment,  his  degree  of  culture,  his 
temperament,  and  all  the  rest.  As  Wayland  Hoyt  expressed 
it,  "Inspiration  is  no;  a  mechanical,  crass,  bald  compulsion  of 
the  sacred  writers,  bi  t  rather  a  dynamic,  divine  influence  over 
their  freely-acting  fa:ulties"  in  order  that  the  latter  in  rela- 
tion to  the  subject-!n  itter  then  in  hand  may  be  kept  inerrant, 
i.  e.,  without  mistake  or  fault.  It  is  limiting  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel  to  say  that  He  is  unable  to  do  this  without  turning 
a  human  being  into  an  automaton.  Has  He  who  created 
man  as  a  free  agent  jeft  Himself  no  opportunity  to  mould  his 
thoughts  into  form^  of  speech  inerrantly  expressive  of  His 
will,  without  destroying  that  which  He  has  made? 

And,  indeed,  wh  Tein  resides  man's  free  agency?  In  his 
mind  or  in  his  mouth?    Shall  we  say ^ he  is  free  while  God 

167 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

controls  his  thought,  but  that  he  becomes  a  mere  machine 
when  that  control  extends  to  the  expression  of  his  thought  ? 

But  returning  to  the  argument,  if  the  divine  influence 
upon  the  writers  did  not  extend  to  the  form  as  well  as  the 
substance  of  their  WTitings ;  if,  in  other  words,  God  gave 
them  only  the  thought,  permitting  them  to  express  it  in  their 
own  words,  what  guarantee  have  we  that  they  have  done 
so? 

An  illustration  the  writer  has  frequently  used  will  help 
to  make  this  clear.  A  stenographer  in  a  mercantile  house 
was  asked  by  his  employer  to  write  as  follows : 

^'Gentlemen :  We  misunderstood  your  letter  and  will  now 
fill  your  order." 

Imagine  the  employer's  surprise,  however,  when  a  little 
later  this  was  set  before  him  for  his  signature: 

"Gentlemen :  We  misunderstood  your  letter  and  will  not 
fill  your  order." 

The  mistake  was  only  of  a  single  letter,  but  it  was  en- 
tirely subversive  of  his  meaning.  And  yet  the  thought  was 
given  clearly  to  the  stenographer,  and  the  words,  too,  for  that 
matter.  Moreover,  the  latter  was  capable  and  faithful,  but 
he  was  human,  and  it  is  human  to  err.  Had  not  his  employer 
controlled  his  expression  down  to  the  very  letter,  the  thought 
intended  to  be  conveyed  would  have  failed  of  utterance. 

In  the  same  way  the  human  authors  of  the  Bible  were 
men  of  like  passions  with  ,  ourselves.  Their  motives  were 
pure,  their  intentions  good,  but  even  if  their  subject-matter 
were  the  commonplaces  of  men,  to  say  nothing  of  the  mys- 
terious and  transcendent  revelation  of  a  holy  God,  how  could 
it  be  an  absolute  transcript  of  the  mind  from  which  it  came 
in  the  absence  of  miraculous  control? 

In  the  last  analysis,  it  is  the  Bible  itself,  of  course,  which 

i68 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

must  settle  the  question  of  its  inspiration  and  the  extent  of 
it,  and  to  this  we  come  in  the  consideration  of  the  proof,  but 
we  may  be  allowed  a  final  question.  Can  even  God  Himself 
give  a  thought  to  man  without  the  words  that  clothe  it?  Are 
not  the  two  inseparable,  as  much  so  "as  a  sum  and  its  figures, 
or  a  tune  and  its  notes"  ?  Has  any  case  been  known  in  human 
history  where  a  healthy  mind  has  been  able  to  create  ideas 
without  expressing  them  to  its  own  perception?  In  other 
words,  as  Dr.  A.  J.  Gordon  once  observed :  "To  deny  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  speaks  in  scripture  is  an  intelligible  proposition, 
but  to  admit  that  He  speaks,  it  is  impossible  to  know  what 
He  says  except  as  we  have  His  Words." 

III.      PROOF   OF   INSPIRATION 

1.  The  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  proven  by  the  philos- 
ophy, or  zvhat  may  be  called  the  nature  of  the  case. 

The  proposition  may  be  stated  thus :  The  Bible  is  the 
history  of  the  redemption  of  the  race,  or  from  the  side  of  the 
individual,  a  supernatural  revelation  of  the  will  of  God  to 
men  for  their  salvation.  But  it  was  given  to  certain  men  of 
one  age  to  be  conveyed  in  writing  to  other  men  in  different 
ages.  Now  all  men  experience  difficulty  in  giving  faithful 
reflections  of  their  thoughts  to  others  because  of  sin,  ignor- 
ance, defective  memory  and  the  inaccuracy  always  incident  to 
the  use  of  language. 

Therefore  it  may  be  easily  deduced  that  if  the  revelation 
is  to  be  communicated  precisely  as  originally  received,  the 
same  supernatural  power  is  required  in  the  one  case  as  in  the 
other.  This  has  been  sufficiently  elaborated  in  the  foregoing 
and  need  not  be  dwelt  upon  again. 

2.  It  may  be  proven  by  the  history  and  character  of  the 

169 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

Bible,  i.  e.,  by  all  that  has  been  assumed  as  to  its  authenticity 
and  credibility.  All  that  goes  to  prove  these  things  goes  to 
prove  its  inspiration. 

To  borrow  in  part,  the  language  of  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession, "the  heavenliness  of  its  matter,  the  efficacy  of  its  doc- 
trine, the  unity  of  its  various  parts,  the  majesty  of  its  style 
and  the  scope  and  completeness  of  its  design"  all  indicate  the 
divinity  of  its  origin. 

The  more  we  think  upon  it  the  more  we  must  be  con- 
vinced that  men  unaided  by  the  Spirit  of  God  could  neither 
have  conceived,  nor  put  together,  nor  preserved  in  its  integrity 
that  precious  deposit  known  as  the  Sacred  Oracles. 

3.  But  the  strongest  proof  is  the  declarations  of  the 
Bible  itself  and  the  inferences  to  be  drawn  from  them.  Nor 
is  this  reasoning  in  a  circle  as  some  might  think.  In  the  case 
of  a  man  as  to  whose  veracity  there  is  no  doubt,  no  hesitancy 
is  felt  in  accepting  what  he  says  about  himself;  and  since  the 
Bible  is  demonstrated  to  be  true  in  its  statements  of  fact  by 
unassailable  evidence,  may  we  not  accept  its  witness  in  its 
own  behalf? 

Take  the  argument  from  Jesus  Christ  as  an  illustration. 
He  was  content  to  be  tested  by  the  prophecies  that  went 
before  on  Him,  and  fhe  result  of  that  ordeal  was  the  estab- 
lishment of  His  claims  to  be  the  Messiah  beyond  a  perad- 
venture.  That  complex  system  of  prophecies,  rendering  col- 
lusion or  counterfeit  impossible,  is  the  incontestable  proof 
that  He  was  what  He  claimed  to  be.  But  of  course,  He  in 
whose  birth,  and  life,  and  death,  and  resurrection  such  mar- 
velous prophecies  met  their  fulfilment,  became,  from  the  hour 
in  which  His  claims  were  established,  a  witness  to  the  divine 
authority  and  infallible  truth  of  the  sacred  records  in  which 

170 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

these  prophecies  are  found.— (The  New  Apologetic,  by  Pro- 
fessor Robert  Watts,  D.  D.) 

It  is  so  with  the  Bible.  The  character  of  its  contents,  the 
unity  of  its  parts,  the  fulfilment  of  its  prophecies,  the  miracles 
wrought  in  its  attestation,  the  effects  it  has  accomplished  in 
the  lives  of  nations  and  of  men,  all  these  go  to  show  that  it 
is  divine,  and  if  so,  that  it  may  be  believed  in  what  it  says 
about  itself. 

A.      ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

To  begin  with  the  Old  Testament,  (a)  consider  hbw  the 
writers  speak  of  the  origin  of  their  messages.  Dr.  James  H. 
Brookes  is  authority  for  saying  that  the  phrase,  "Thus  saith 
the  Lord"  or  its  equivalent  is  used  by  them  2,000  times.  Sup- 
pose we  eliminate  this  phrase  and  its  necessary  context  from 
the  Old  Testament  in  every  instance,  one  wonders  how  much 
of  the  Old  Testament  would  remain. 

{h)  Consider  how  the  utterances  of  the  Old  Testament 
writers  are  introduced  into  the  New.  Take  Matthew  i :  22  as 
an  illustration,  "Now  all  this  was  done  that  it  might  be  ful- 
filled which  was  spoken  by  the  Lord  through  the  prophet." 
It  was  not  the  prophet  who  spake,  but  the  Lord  who  spake 
through  the  prophet. 

(c)  Consider  how  Christ  and  His  apostles  regard  the 
Old  Testament.  He  came  "not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfill  the 
law  and  the  prophets."  Matt.  5:17.  "The  Scripture  cannot 
be  broken."  John  10 :  35.  He  sometimes  used  single  words 
as  the  bases  of  important  doctrines,  twice  in  Matthew  22  at 
verses  31,  32  and  42-45.  The  apostles  do  the  same.  Sec 
Galatians  3:16,  Hebrews  2:8,   11  and  12:26,  2y, 

171 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

(d)  Consider  what  the  apostles  directly  teach  upon  the 
subject.  Peter  tells  us  that  "No  prophecy  ever  came  by  the 
will  of  man,  but  men  spake  from  God,  being  moved  by  the 
Holy  Spirit"  (2  Peter  1:21,  R.  V.).  "Prophecy"  here  ap- 
plies to  the  word  written  as  is  indicated  in  the  preceding 
verse,  and  means  not  merely  the  foretelling  of  events,  but  the 
utterances  of  any  word  of  God  without  reference  as  to  time 
past,  present  or  to  come.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  what  Peter 
declares  is  that  the  will  of  man  had  nothing  to  do  with  any 
part  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  that  the  whole  of  it,  from 
Genesis  to  Malachi,  was  inspired  by  God. 

Of  course  Paul  says  the  same,  in  language  even  plainer, 
in  2  Timothy  3:16,  "All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,  and  is  profitable."  The  phrase  "inspiration  of  God" 
means  literally  God-breathed.  The  whole  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  God-breathed,  for  it  is  to  that  part  of  the  Bible  the 
language  particularly  refers,  since  the  New  Testament  as 
such  was  not  then  generally  known. 

As  this  verse  is  given  somewhat  differently  in  the  Re- 
vised Version  we  dwell  vipon  it  a  moment  longer.  It  there 
reads,  "Every  scripture  inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable," 
and  the  caviller  is  disposed  to  say  that  therefore  some  scrip- 
ture may  be  inspired  and  some  may  not  be,  and  that  the 
profitableness  extends  only  to  the  former  and  not  the  latter. 

But  aside  from  the  fact  that  Paul  would  hardly  be  guilty 
of  such  a  weak  truism  as  that,  it  may  be  stated  in  reply  first, 
that  the  King  James  rendering  of  the  passage  is  not  only 
the  more  consistent  scripture,  but  the  more  consistent  Greek. 
Several  of  the  best  Greek  scholars  of  the  period  affirm  this, 
including  some  of  the  revisers  themselves  who  did  not  vote 
for  the  change.  And  secondly,  even  the  revisers  place  it  in 
the  margin  as  of  practically  equal  authority  with  their  pre- 

172 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

f erred  translation,  and  to  be  chosen  by  the  reader  if  desired. 
There  are  not  a  few  devout  Christians,  however,  who  would 
be  willing  to  retain  the  rendering  of  the  Revised  Version  as 
being  stronger  than  the  King  James,  and  who  would  inter- 
polate a  w^ord  in  applying  it  to  make  it  mean,  "Every  scrip- 
ture (because)  inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable."  Wc  be- 
lieve that  both  Gaussen  and  Wordsworth  take  this  view,  two 
as  staunch  defenders  of  plenary  inspiration  as  could  be 
named. 

B.      ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

We  are  sometimes  reminded  that,  however  strong  and 
convincing  the  argument  for  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, that  for  the  New  Testament  is  only  indirect.  "Not 
one  of  the  evangelists  tells  us  that  he  is  inspired,"  says  a  cer- 
tain theological  professor,  "and  not  one  writer  of  an  epistle, 
except  Paul." 

We  shall  be  prepared  to  dispute  this  statement  a  little 
further  on,  but  in  the  meantime  let  us  reflect  that  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament  being  assured  as  it  is,  why  should 
similar  evidence  be  required  for  the  New?  Whoever  is  com- 
petent to  speak  as  a  Bible  authority  knows  that  the  unity  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  is  the  strongest  demonstration 
of  their  common  source.  They  are  seen  to  be  not  two  books, 
but  only  two  parts  of  one  book. 

To  take  then  the  analogy  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
foregoing  argument  proves  its  inspiration  as  a  whole,  al- 
though there  were  long  periods  separating  the  different 
writers,  Moses  and  David  let  us  say,  or  David  and  Daniel,  the 
Pentateuch  and  the  Psalms,  or  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophets. 
As  long,  or  longer,  than  between  Malachi  and  Matthew,  or 
Ezra  and  the  Gospels.     If  then  to  carry  conviction  for  the 

^7Z 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

plenary  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  prove  it  for  every  book,  v^rhy,  to  carry  con- 
viction for  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole  is 
it  necessary  to  do  the  same? 

We  quote  here  a  paragraph  or  two  from  Dr.  Nathaniel 
West.  He  is  referring  to  2  Timothy  3 :  16,  which  he  renders, 
**Every  scripture  is  inspired  of  God,"  and  adds: 

*The  distributive  word  'Every'  is  used  not  only  to  par- 
ticularize each  individual  scripture  of  the  Canon  that  Timothy 
had  studied  from  his  youth,  but  also  to  include,  along  with 
the  Old  Testament  the  New  Testament  scriptures  extant  in 
Paul's  day,  and  any  others,  such  as  those  that  John  wrote  after 
him. 

"The  Apostle  Peter  tells  us  that  he  was  in  possession, 
not  merely  of  some  of  Paul's  Epistles,  but  'all  his  Epistles,* 
and  places  them,  canonically,  in  the  same  rank  with  what  he 
calls  'the  other  scriptures,'  i.  e.,  of  equal  inspiration  and 
authority  with  the  'words  spoken  before  by  the  Holy  Prophets, 
and  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour,  through  the 
Apostles.'     2  Peter  3:2,  16. 

"Paul  teaches  the  same  co-ordination  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments.  Having  referred  to  the  Old  as  a  unit,  in 
his  phrase  'Holy  Scriptures,'  which  the  revisers  translate  'Sa- 
cred Writings,'  he  proceeds  to  particularize.  He  tells  Tim- 
othy that  'every  scripture,'  whether  of  Old  or  New  Testament 
production,  'is  inspired  of  God.'  Let  it  be  in  the  Pentateuch, 
the  Psalms,  the  Prophets,  the  Historical  Books,  let  it  be  a 
chapter  or  a  verse ;  let  it  be  in  the  Gospels,  the  Acts,  his  own 
or  Peter's  Epistles,  or  even  John's  writings,  yet  to  be,  still 
each  part  of  the  Sacred  Collection  is  God-given  and  because 
of  that  possesses  divine  authority  as  part  of  the  Book  of 
God." 

174 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

We  read  this  from  Dr.  West  twenty  years  ago,  and  re- 
jected it  as  his  dictum.  We  read  it  to-day,  with  deeper  and 
fuller  knowledge  of  the  subject,  and  we  believe  it  to  be  true. 

It  is  somewhat  as  follows  that  Dr.  Gaussen  in  his  exhaus- 
tive "Theopneustia"  gives  the  argument  for  the  inspiration 
of  the  New  Testament. 

(a)  The  New  Testament  is  the  later,  and  for  that 
reason  the  more  important  revelation  of  the  two,  and  hence 
if  the  former  were  inspired,  it  certainly  must  be  true  of  the 
latter.  The  opening  verses  of  the  first  and  second  chapters 
of  Hebrews  plainly  suggest  this :  "God,  who  at  sundry  times 
and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by 
the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  His 
Son  *  *  *  Therefore,  we  ought  to  give  the  more  earnest 
heed  to  the  things  which  we  have  heard." 

And  this  inference  is  rendered  still  more  conclusive  by 
the  circumstance  that  the  New  Testament  sometimes  explains, 
sometimes  proves,  and  sometimes  even  repeals  ordinances  of 
the  Old  Testament.  See  Matthew  i :  22,  23  for  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  first,  Acts  13  :i9  to  39  for  the  second,  and  Galatians 
5:6  for  the  third.  Assuredly  these  things  would  not  be  true 
if  the  New  Testament  were  not  of  equal,  and  in  a  certain 
sense,  even  greater  authority  than  the  Old. 

{h)  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  were  of  an 
equal  or  higher  rank  than  those  of  the  Old.  That  they  were 
prophets  is  evident  from  such  allusions  as  Romans  16 :  25-27, 
and  Ephesians  3:4,  5.  But  that  they  were  more  than  proph- 
ets is  indicated  in  the  fact  that  wherever  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment prophets  and  apostles  are  both  mentioned,  the  last- 
named  is  always  mentioned  first  (see  i  Cor.  12:28,  Ephesians 
2:20,  Ephesians  4:11).  It  is  also  true  that  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  had  a  his/her  mission  than  those  of  the 

K'S 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

Old,  since  they  were  sent  forth  by  Christ,  as  he  had  been 
sent  forth  by  the  Father  (John  20:21).  They  were  to  go, 
not  to  a  single  nation  only  (as  Israel),  but  into  all  the  world 
(Matthew  28:  19).  They  received  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  (IMatthew  16:19).  And  they  are  to  be  pre-emi- 
nently rewarded  in  the  regeneration  (Matthew  19:28).  Such 
considerations  and  comparisons  as  these  are  not  to  be  over- 
looked in  estimating  the  authority  by  which  they  wrote. 

(c)  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  were  especially 
qualified  for  their  work,  as  we  see  in  Matthew  10 :  19,  20, 
Mark  13:11,  Luke  12:2,  John  14:26  and  John  16:13,  14* 
These  passages  will  be  dwelt  on  more  at  length  in  a  later 
division  of  our  subject,  but  just  now  it  may  be  noticed  that 
in  some  of  the  instance^:;,  inspiration  of  the  most  absolute 
character  was  promised  as  to  what  they  should  speak — the 
inference  being  warranted  that  none  the  less  would  they  be 
guided  in  what  they  wrote.  Their  spoken  words  were  limited 
and  temporary  in  their  sphere,  but  their  written  utterances 
covered  the  whole  range  of  revelation  and  were  to  last  for- 
ever. If  in  the  one  case  they  were  inspired,  how  much  more 
in  the  other? 

(d)  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  directly  claim 
divine  inspiration.  See  Acts  15:23-29,  where,  especially  at 
verse  28,  James  is  recorded  as  saying,  "for  it  seemed  good  to 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us,  to  lay  upon  you  no  greater  burden 
than  these  necessary  things."  Here  it  is  affirmed  very  clearly 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  real  writer  of  the  letter  in  ques- 
tion and  simply  using  the  human  instruments  for  his  pur- 
pose. Add  to  this  i  Corinthians  2:13,  where  Paul  says: 
"Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in  the  words  which  man's 
wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth,  com- 
paring spiritual  things  with  spiritual,"  or  as  the  margin  of  the 

176 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

Revised  Version  puts  it,  "imparting  spiritual  things  to  spirit- 
ual men."  In  i  Thessalonians  2:13  the  same  writer  says: 
"For  this  cause  also  thank  we  God  without  ceasing,  because 
when  ye  received  the  word  of  God  which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye 
received  it  not  as  the  word  of  man,  but  as  it  is  in  truth  the 
w^ord  of  God."  In  2  Peter  3 : 2  the  apostle  places  his  own 
words  on  a  level  with  those  of  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  in  verses  15  and  16  of  the  same  chapter  he  does 
the  same  with  the  writings  of  Paul,  classifying  them  "with 
the  other  scriptures."  Finally,  in  Revelation  2 : 7,  although 
it  is  the  Apostle  John  who  is  writing,  he  is  authorized  to 
exclaim:  "He  that  hath  an  ear  let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit 
saith  unto  the  churches,"  and  so  on  throughout  the  epistles  to 
the  seven  churches. 

C.      ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  WORDS 

The  evidence  that  the  inspiration  includes  the  form  as 
well  as  the  substance  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  word  as  well 
as  the  thought,  may  be  gathered  in  this  way. 

I.  There  were  certainly  some  occasiots  when  the  words 
were  given  to  the  human  agents.  Take  the  instance  of  Balaam 
(Numbers  22:38,  23:12,  16).  It  is  clear  that  this  self- 
seeking  prophet  thought,  i.  e.,  desired  to  speak  differently 
from  what  he  did,  but  was  obliged  to  speak  the  word  that 
God  put  in  his  mouth.  There  are  two  incontrovertible  wit- 
nesses to  this,  one  being  Balaam  himself  and  the  other  God. 

Take  Saul  (i  Samuel  10: 10),  or  at  a  later  time,  his  mes- 
sengers (19:20-24).  No  one  will  claim  that  there  was  not 
an  inspiration  of  the  words  here.  And  Caiaphas  also  (John 
II  :  49-52),  of  whom  it  is  expressly  said  that  when  he  prophe- 
sied that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people,  "this  spake  he 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  Nczu  Theology 

not  of  himself."  Who  believes  that  Caiaphas  meant  or  reall>' 
knew  the  significance  of  what  he  said? 

And  how  entirely  this  harmonizes  with  Christ's  promise 
to  His  disciples  in  Matthew  lo:  19,  20  and  elsewhere.  ''When 
they  deliver  you  up  take  no  thought  (be  not  anxious)  how  or 
what  ye  shall  speak;  for  it  shall  be  given  you  in  that  hour 
what  ye  shall  speak.  For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak  but  the 
Spirit  of  your  Father  which  speaketh  in  you."  Mark  is  even 
more  emphatic:  "Neither  do  ye  premeditate,  but  whatsoever 
shall  be  given  you  in  that  hour,  that  speak  ye,  for  it  is  not  ye 
that  speak,  but  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Take  the  circumstance  of  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts  2: 
4-I1),  when  the  disciples  ''began  to  speak  with  other  tongues 
as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."  Parthians,  Medes,  Elam- 
ites,  the  dwellers  in  Mesopotamia,  in  Judea,  Cappadocia, 
Pontus,  Asia,  Phrygia,  Pamphylia,  Egypt,  in  the  parts  of 
Libya  about  Cyrene,  the  strangers  of  Rome,  Cretes  and  Ara- 
bians all  testified,  "we  do  hear  them  spcc.k  in  our  tongues 
the  wonderful  works  of  God!"  Did  not  this  inspiration  in- 
clude the  words?  Did  it  not  indeed  exclude  the  thought? 
What  clearer  example  could  be  desired? 

To  the  same  purport  consider  Paul's  teaching  in  i  Corin- 
thians 14  about  the  gift  of  tongues.  He  that  speaketh  in  an 
unknown  tongue,  in  the  Spirit  speaketh  mysteries,  but  no  man 
understandeth  him,  therefore  he  is  to  pray  that  he  may  inter- 
pret. Under  some  circumstances,  if  no  interpreter  be  pres- 
ent, he  is  to  keep  silence  in  the  church  and  speak  only  to 
himself  and  to  God. 

But  better  still,  consider  the  utterance  of  i  Peter  i :  10, 
II,  where  he  speaks  of  them  who  pro^^hesied  of  the  grace 
that  should  come,  as  "searching  what,  or  what  manner  oj 
time,  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  vras  in  them  did  signify  whe^ 

178 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

He  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  the  glory 
that  should  follow,  to  whom  it  was  revealed,"  etc. 

"Should  we  see  a  student  who,  having  taken  down  the 
lecture  of  a  profound  philosopher,  was  now  studying  dili- 
gently to  comprehend  the  sense  of  the  discourse  which  he 
had  written,  we  should  understand  simply  that  he  was  a 
pupil  and  not  a  master;  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with 
originating  either  the  thoughts  or  the  words  of  the  lecture, 
but  was  rather  a  disciple  whose  province  it  was  to  under- 
stand what  he  had  transcribed,  and  so  be  able  to  communicate 
it  to  others. 

*'And  who  can  deny  that  this  is  the  exact  picture  of  what 
we  have  in  this  passage  from  Peter?  Here  were  inspired 
writers  studying  the  meaning  of  what  they  themselves  had 
written.  With  all  possible  allowance  for  the  human  peculi- 
arities of  the  writers,  they  must  have  been  reporters  of  what 
they  heard,  rather  than  formulators  of  that  which  they  had 
been  made  to  understand." — A.  J.  Gordon  in  "The  Ministry 
of  the  Spirit,"  pp.  173,   174. 

2.  The  Bible  plainly  teaches  that  inspiration  extends  to 
its  words.  We  spoke  of  Balaam  as  uttering  that  which  God 
put  in  his  mouth,  but  the  same  expression  is  used  by  God 
Himself  with  reference  to  His  prophets.  When  Moses  would 
excuse  himself  from  service  because  he  was  not  eloquent.  He 
who  made  man's  mouth  said,  "Now  therefore  go,  and  I  will 
be  with  thy  mouth,  and  teach  thee  what  thou  shalt  say"  (Exo- 
dus 4:  10-12).  And  Dr.  James  H.  Brookes'  comment  is  very 
pertinent.  "God  did  not  say  I  will  be  with  thy  mind,  and 
teach  thee  what  thou  shalt  think ;  but  I  will  be  with  thy  mouth 
and  teach  thee  what  thou  shalt  say.  This  explains  why,  forty 
years  afterwards,  Moses  said  to  Israel,  'Ye  shall  not  add  unto 
the  word  I  command  you,  neither  shall  ye  diminish  ought 

179 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

from  it/  (Deut.  4:2.)"  Seven  times  Moses  tells  us  that  the 
tables  of  stone  containing  the  commandments  were  the  work 
of  God,  and  the  writing  was  the  writing  of  God,  graven 
upon  the  tables  (Exodus  31 :  16). 

Passing  from  the  Pentateuch  to  the  poetical  books  we 
find  David  saying,  "The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  spake  by  me,  and 
His  word  was  in  my  tongue"  (2  Samuel  23:  i,  2).  He,  too, 
does  not  say,  God  thought  by  me,  but  spake  by  me. 

Coming  to  the  prophets,  Jeremiah  confesses  that,  like 
Moses,  he  recoiled  from  the  mission  on  which  he  was  sent 
and  for  the  same  reason.  He  was  a  child  and  could  not 
speak.  "Then  the  Lord  put  forth  His  hand  and  touched  my 
mouth.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  me.  Behold  I  have  put  My 
word  in  thy  mouth"   (Jeremiah  1:6-9). 

All  of  which  substantiates  the  declaration  of  Peter  quoted 
earlier,  that  "no  prophecy  ever  came  by  the  will  of  man,  but 
man  spake  from  God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 
Surely,  if  the  will  of  man  had  nothing  to  go  with  the  prophecy, 
he  could  not  have  been  at  liberty  in  the  selection  of  the 
words. 

So  much  for  the  Old  Testament,  but  when  we  reach  the 
New,  we  have  the  same  unerring  and  verbal  accuracy  guar- 
anteed to  the  apostles  by  the  Son  of  God,  as  we  have  seen. 
And  we  have  the  apostles  making  claim  of  it,  as  when  Paul  in 
I  Corinthians  2:12,  13  distinguishes  between  the  "things" 
or  the  thoughts  which  God  gave  him  and  the  words  in  which 
he  expressed  them,  and  insisting  on  the  divinity  of  both; 
"Which  things  also  we  speak,"  he  says,  "not  in  the  words 
which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
teacheth."  In  Galatians  3:  16,  following  the  example  of  His 
divine  Master,  he  employs  not  merely  a  single  word,  but  a 
single  letter  of  a  word  as  the  basis  of  an  argument  for  a 

180 


The  Inspiraiion  of  the  Bible 

great  doctrine.  The  blessing  of  justification  which  Abraham 
received  has  become  that  of  the  behever  in  Jesus  Christ.  **Now 
to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made.  He  saith 
not,  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many;  but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy 
seed,  which  is   Christ." 

The  wTiter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  bases  a  similar 
argument  on  the  word  "all"  in  chapter  i :  8,  on  the  word 
"one"  in  i:ii,  and  on  the  phrase  "yet  once  more"  in  12 : 
26, 2y. 

To  recur  to  Paul's  argument  in  Galatians,  Archdeacon 
Farrar  in  one  of  his  writings  denies  that  by  any  possibility 
such  a  Hebraist  as  he,  and  such  a  master  of  Greek  usage  could 
have  argued  in  this  way.  He  says  Paul  must  have  known 
that  the  plural  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  terms  for  "seed"  is 
never  used  by  Hebrew  or  Greek  writers  to  designate  human 
offspring.     It  means,  he  says,  various  kinds  of  grain. 

His  artlessness  is  amusing.  We  accept  his  estimate  of 
Paul's  knowledge  of  Hebrew  and  Greek,  says  Professor 
Watts ;  he  was  certainly  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews,  and  as 
to  his  Greek,  he  could  not  only  write  it  but  speak  it  as  wc 
know,  and  quote  what  suited  his  purpose  from  the  Greek 
poets.  But  on  this  supposition  we  feel  justified  in  asking  Dr. 
Farrar  whether  a  lexicographer  in  searching  Greek  authors 
for  the  meanings  they  attached  to  spermata,  the  Greek  for 
"seeds,"  would  not  be  inclined  to  add  "human  offspring"  on 
so  good  an  authority  as  Paul? 

Nor  indeed  would  they  be  limited  to  his  authority,  since 
Sophocles  uses  it  in  the  same  w^ay,  and  Aeschylus.  "I  was 
driven  away  from  my  country  by  my  own  offspring"  (j/>^r- 
rtiata) — Hterally  by  my  ov.n  seeds,  is  what  the  former  makes 
one  of  his  characters   say. 

Dr.  Farrar's  rendering  of  spermata  in  Galatians  3: 16  on, 
181 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theology 

the  other  hand  wonid  make  nonsense  if  not  sacrilege.  "He 
saith  not  unto  various  kinds  of  grain  as  of  many,  but  as  of 
one,  and  to  thy  grain,  which  is  Christ." 

"Granting  then,  what  we  thank  no  man  for  granting, 
that  spermata  means  human  offspring,  it  is  evident  that  des- 
pite all  opinions  to  the  contrary,  this  passage  sustains  the 
teaching  of  an  inspiration  of  Holy  Writ  extending  to  its  very 
words." 

3.  But  the  most  unique  argument  for  the  inspiration  of 
the  words  of  scripture  is  the  relation  which  Jesus  Christ  hears 
to  them.  In  the  first  place.  He  Himself  was  inspired  as  to 
His  words.  In  the  earliest  reference  to  His  prophetic  office 
(Deut.  18:18),  Jehovah  says,  "I  will  put  My  words  in  His 
mouth,  and  He  shall  speak  *  *  *  all  that  I  shall  command 
Him."  A  limitation  on  His  utterance  which  Jesus  every- 
where recognizes.  "As  My  Father  hath  taught  Me,  I  speak 
these  things;"  "the  Father  which  sent  Me,  He  gave  Me  a 
commandment  what  I  should  say,  and  w^hat  I  should  speak;" 
"whatsoever  I  speak  therefore,  even  as  the  Father  said  unto 
Me,  so  I  speak;"  "I  have  given  unto  them  the  words  which 
Thou  gavest  Me;"  "the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they 
are  spirit  and  they  are  life."     (John  6:63;  8:26,  28,  40;  12: 

49.  50-) 

The  thought  is  still  more  impressive  as  we  read  of  the 
relation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  God-man.  "The  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  is  upon  Me  because  He  hath  anointed  Me  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  the  poor;"  "He  through  the  Holy  Ghost  had 
given  commandments  unto  the  apostles;"  "the  revelation  of 
Jesus  Christ  which  God  gave  unto  Him;"  "these  things  saith 
He  that  holdeth  the  seven  stars  in  His  right  hand ;"  "He  that 
hath  an  ear  let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the 
churches"    (Luke  4:18;  Acts    1:2;    Rev.  1:1;  2:1,  11.)     If 

\Z2 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

the  incarnate  Word  needcJ  the  unction  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  give  to  men  the  revelation  He  received  from  the  Father  in 
Whose  bosom  He  dwells ;  and  if  the  agency  of  the  same 
Spirit  extended  to  the  words  He  spake  in  preaching  the  gos- 
pel to  the  meek  or  dictating  an  epistle,  how  much  more  must 
these  things  be  so  in  the  case  of  ordinary  men  when  en- 
gaged in  the  same  service?  With  what  show  of  reason  can 
one  contend  that  any  Old  or  New  Testament  writer  stood,  so 
far  as  his  words  were  concerned,  i'^  need  of  no  such  agency." 
— The  New  Apologetic,  pp.  67,  68,       ''- 

In  the  second  place  He  used  the  scriptures  as  though  they 
were  inspired  as  to  their  words.  In  Matthew  22:31,  32,  He 
substantiates  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  against  the  skep- 
ticism of  the  Sadducees  by  emphasizing  the  present  tense  of 
the  verb  "to  be,"  i.  e.,  the  word  **am"  in  the  language  of 
Jehovah  to  ]\Ioses  at  the  burning  bush.  In  verses  42-45  of 
the  same  chapter  He  does  the  same  for  His  own  Deity  by 
alluding  to  the  second  use  of  the  word  *'Lord"  in  Psalm  CX. 
'The  LORD  said  unto  my  Lord  *  *  *  if  David  then  call 
him  Lord,  how  is  he  his  son?"  In  John  10:34-36,  He  vindi- 
cates Himself  from  the  charge  of  blasphemy  by  saying,  *Ts  it 
not  written  in  your  law,  I  said,  Ye  are  gods?  If  He  called 
them  gods,  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  and  the  scrip- 
ture cannot  be  broken ;  say  ye  of  him,  whom  the  Father  hath 
sanctified,  and  sent  into  the  world.  Thou  blasphemest;  be- 
cause I  said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God?" 

We  have  already  seen  Him  (in  Matthew  4)  overcoming 
the  tempter  in  the  wilderness  by  three  quotations  from  Deuter- 
onomy without  note  or  comment  except,  "It  is  zvritten."  Re- 
ferring to  which  Adolphe  Monod  says,  'T  know  of  nothing  in 
the  whole  history  of  humanity,  nor  even  in  the  field  of  divine 
revelation,  that  proves  more  clearly  than  this  the  inspiratiof 

183 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theology 

of  the  scriptures.  What!  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lord  of  heaven 
and  earth,  caUing  to  his  aid  in  that  solemn  moment  Moses 
liis  servant?  He  who  speaks  from  heaven  fortifying  him- 
self against  the  temptations  of  hell  by  the  word  of  him  who 
spake  from  earth?  How  can  we  explain  that  spiritual  mys- 
tery, that  wonderful  reversing  of  the  order  of  things,  if  for 
Jesus  the  words  of  Moses  were  not  the  words  of  God  rather 
than  those  of  men?  How  shall  we  explain  it  if  Jesus  were 
not  fully  aware  that  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost? 

"I  do  not  forget  the  objections  which  have  been  raised 
against  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures,  nor  the  real  obscurity 
with  which  that  inspiration  is  surrounded;  if  they  sometimes 
trouble  your  hearts,  they  have  troubled  mine  also.  But  at 
such  times,  in  order  to  revive  my  faith,  I  have  only  to  glance 
at  Jesus  glorifying  the  scriptures  in  the  wilderness;  and  I 
have  seen  that  for  all  who  rely  upon  Him,  the  most  embarrass- 
ing of  problems  is  transformed  into  a  historical  fact,  palpable 
and  clear.  Jesus  no  doubt  was  aware  of  the  difficulties  con- 
nected with  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures,  but  did  this  pre- 
vent Him  from  appealing  to  their  testimony  with  unreserved 
confidence?  Let  that  which  was  sufficient  for  Him  suffice  for 
you.  Fear  not  that  the  rock  which  sustained  the  Lord  in  the 
hour  of  His  temptation  and  distress  will  give  way  because 
you  lean  too  heavily  upon  it." 

In  the  third  place,  Christ  teaches  that  the  scriptures  are 
inspired  as  to  their  words.  In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  He 
said,  "Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law,  or  the 
prophets :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily 
I  say  unto  you.  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one 
tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled." 

Here  is  testimony  confirmed  by  an  oath,  for  "verily"  on 

184 


The  Inspiration   of  the  Bible 

the  lips  of  the  Son  of  2^Ian  carries  such  force.  He  affirms  the 
indestructibihty  of  the  law,  not  its  substance  merely  but  its 
form,  not  the  thought  but  the  word. 

"One  jot  or  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law." 
The  "jot"  means  the  yod,  the  smallest  letter  in  the  Hebrew 
alphabet,  while  the  "tittle"  means  the  horn,  a  short  projection 
in  certain  letters  extending  the  base  line  beyond  the  upright 
one  which  rests  upon  it.  A  reader  unaccustomed  to  the  He- 
brew needs  a  strong  eye  to  see  the  tittle,  but  Qirist  guaran- 
tees that  as  a  part  of  the  sacred  text  neither  the  tittle  nor  the 
yod  shall  perish. 

The  elder  Lightfoot,  the  Hebraist  and  rabbinical  scholar 
of  the  Westminster  Assembly  time,  has  called  attention  to  an 
interesting  story  of  a  certain  letter  yod  found  in  the  text  of 
Deut.  32:  18.  It  is  in  the  word  teshi,  to  forsake,  translated  in 
the  King  James  as  "unmindful."  Originally  it  seems  to 
have  been  written  smaller  even  than  usual,  i.  e.,  undersized, 
and  yet  notwithstanding  the  almost  infinite  number  of  times 
in  which  copies  have  been  made,  that  little  yod  stands  there 
to-day  just  as  it  ever  did.  Lightfoot  spoke  of  it  in  the  middle 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  although  two  more  centuries 
and  a  half  have  passed  since  then  with  all  their  additional 
copies  of  the  book,  yet  it  still  retains  its  place  in  the  sacred 
text.  Its  diminutive  size  is  referred  to  in  the  margin,  "but  no 
hand  has  dared  to  add  a  hair's  breadth  to  its  length,"  so  that 
we  can  still  employ  his  words,  and  say  that  it  is  likely  to  re- 
main there  forever. 

The  same  scholar  speaks  of  the  eflfect  a  slight  change  in 
the  form  of  a  Hebrew  letter  might  produce  in  the  substance 
of  the  thought  for  which  it  stands.  He  takes  as  an  example 
two  words,  "Chalal"  and  "Halal,"  which  differ  from  each 
other  simply  in  their  first  radicals.     The  "Ch"  in  Hebrew  is 

i8s 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

expressed  by  one  letter  the  same  as  "H,"  the  only  distinction 
being  a  slight  break  or  opening  in  the  left  limb  of  the  latter. 
It  seems  too  trifling  to  notice,  but  let  that  line  be  broken 
where  it  should  be  continuous,  and  *Thou  shalt  not  profane 
the  Name  of  thy  God"  in  Leviticus  18:21,  becomes  "Thou 
shalt  not  praise  the  Name  of  thy  God."  Through  that  aper- 
ture, however  small,  tne  entire  thought  of  the  Divine  mind 
oozes  out,  so  to  speak,  and  becomes  quite  antagonistic  to  what 
was  designed. 

This  shows  how  truly  the  thought  and  the  word  express- 
ing it  are  bound  together,  and  that  whatever  affects  the  one 
imperils  the  other.  As  another  says,  "The  bottles  are  not  the 
wine,  but  if  the  bottles  perish,  the  wine  is  sure  to  be  spilled." 
It  may  seem  like  narrow-mindedness  to  contend  for  this,  and 
an  evidence  of  enlightenment  of  liberal  scholarship  to  treat  it 
with  indifference,  but  we  should  be  prepared  to  take  our  stand 
with  Jesus  Christ  in  the  premises,  and  if  necessary,  go  out- 
side the  camp  bearing  our  reproach. 

IV.      DIFFICULTIES   AND  OBJECTIONS 

That  there  are  difficulties  in  the  way  of  accepting  a  view 
of  inspiration  like  this  goes  without  saying.  But  to  the  finite 
mind  there  must  always  be  difficulties  connected  with  a  revela- 
tion from  the  Infinite,  and  it  can  not  be  otherwise.  This  has 
been  mentioned  before.  Men  of  faith,  and  it  is  such  we  are 
addressing,  and  not  men  of  the  world,  do  not  wait  to  under- 
stand or  resolve  all  the  difficulties  associated  with  other  mys- 
teries of  the  Bible  before  accepting  them  as  divine,  and  why 
should  they  do  so  in  this  case? 

Moreover,  Archbishop  Whately's  dictum  is  generally  ac- 
cepted, that  we  are  not  obliged  to  clear  away  every  difficulty 

186 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

about  a  doctrine  in  order  to  believe  it,  always  provided  tHat 
the  facts  on  which  it  rests  are  true.  And  particularly  is  this 
the  case  where  the  rejection  of  such  a  doctrine  involves 
greater  difficulties  than  its  belief,  as  it  does  here. 

For  if  this  view  of  inspiration  be  rejected,  what  have  its 
opponents  to  give  in  its  place?  Do  they  realize  that  any  ob- 
jections to  it  are  slight  in  comparison  with  those  to  any  other 
view  that  can  be  named?  And  do  they  realize  that  this  is 
true  because  this  view  has  the  immeasurable  advantage  of 
agreeing  with  the  plain  declarations  of  Scripture  on  the  sub- 
ject? In  other  words,  as  Dr.  Burrell  says,  those  who  assert 
the  inerrancy  of  the  scripture  autographs  do  so  on  the  author- 
ity of  God  Himself,  and  to  deny  it  is  of  a  piece  with  the  denial 
that  they  teach  the  forgiveness  of  sins  or  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead.  No  amount  of  exegetical  turning  and  twist- 
ing can  explain  away  the  assertions  already  quoted  in  these 
pages,  to  say  nothing  of  the  constant  undertone  of  evidence 
we  find  in  the  Bible  everywhere  to  their  truth.     ^ 

And  speaking  of  this  further,  are  we  not  justified  in  re- 
quiring of  the  objector  two  things?  First,  on  any  fair  basis 
of  scientific  investigation,  is  he  not  obliged  to  dispose  of  the 
evidence  here  presented  before  he  impugns  the  doctrine  it 
substantiates?  And  second,  after  having  disposed  of  it,  is  he 
not  equally  obligated  to  present  the  scriptural  proof  of  what- 
ever other  view  of  inspiration  he  would  have  us  accept  ?  Has 
he  ever  done  this,  and  if  not,  are  we  not  further  justified  in 
saying  that  it  can  not  be  done?  But  let  us  consider  some  of 
the  difficulties. 

I.  There  are  the  so-called  discrepancies  or  contradictions 
between  certain  statements  of  the  Bible  and  the  facts  of  his- 
tory or  natural  science.  The  best  way  to  meet  these  is  to 
treat  them  separately  as  they  are  presented,  but  when  you 

187 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

ask  for  them  you  are  not  infrequently  met  with  silence.  They 
are  hard  to  produce,  and  when  produced,  who  is  able  to  say 
that  they  belong  to  the  original  parchments?  As  we  are  not 
contending  for  an  inerrant  translation,  does  not  the  burden 
of  proof  rest  with  the  objector? 

But  some  of  these  "discrepancies'*  are  easily  explained. 
They  do  not  exist  between  statements  of  the  Bible  and  facts 
of  science,  but  between  erroneous  interpretations  of  the  Bible 
and  immature  conclusions  of  science.  The  old  story  of  Gali- 
leo is  in  point,  who  did  not  contradict  the  Bible  in  affirming 
that  the  earth  moved  round  the  sun  but  only  the  false  theo- 
logical assumptions  about  it.  In  this  way  advancing  light  has 
removed  many  of  these  discrepancies,  and  it  is  fair  to  presume 
with  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  that  further  light  would  remove  all. 

2.  There  are  the  differences  in  the  narratives  themselves. 
In  the  first  place,  the  New  Testament  writers  sometimes 
change  important  words  in  quoting  from  the  Old  Testament, 
which  it  is  assumed  could  not  be  the  case  if  in  both  instances 
the  writers  were  inspired.  But  it  is  forgotten  that  in  the 
scriptures  we  are  dealing  not  so  much  with  different  human 
authors  as  with  one  Divine  Author.  It  is  a  principle  in  or- 
dinary literature  that  an  author  may  quote  himself  as  he 
pleases,  and  give  a  different  turn  to  an  expression  here  and 
there  as  a  changed  condition  of  affairs  renders  it  necessary  or 
desirable.  Shall  we  deny  this  privilege  to  the  Holy  Spirit? 
May  we  not  find,  indeed,  that  some  of  these  supposed  mis- 
quotations show  such  progress  of  truth,  such  evident  appli- 
cation of  the  teaching  of  an  earlier  dispensation  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  a  later  one,  as  to  afford  a  confirmation  of  their 
divine  origin  rather  than  an  argument  against  it? 

We  offered  illustrations  of  this  earlier,  but  to  those  would 
now  add  Isaiah  59 :  20  quoted  in  Romans  1 1 :  26,  and  Amos 

188 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

9:11  quoted  in  Acts  15:  16.  And  to  any  desiring  to  further 
examine  the  subject  we  would  recommend  the  valuable  work 
of  Professor  Franklin  Johnson,  of  Chicago  University,  en- 
titled "The  Quotations  in  the  New  Testament  from  the  Old," 

Another  class  of  differences,  however,  is  where  the  same 
event  is  sometimes  given  differently  by  different  writers.  Take 
that  most  frequently  used  by  the  objectors,  the  inscription  on 
the  cross,  recorded  by  all  the  evangelists  and  yet  differently 
by  each.     How  can  such  records  be  inspired,  it  is  asked. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  in  reply,  that  the  inscription  w^as 
written  in  three  languages  calling  for  a  different  arrange- 
ment of  the  words  in  each  case,  and  that  one  evangelist  may 
have  translated  the  Hebrew,  and  another  the  Latin,  while  a 
third  recorded  the  Greek.  It  is  not  said  that  any  one  gave  the 
full  inscription,  nor  can  we  affirm  that  there  was  any  obliga- 
tion upon  them  to  do  so.  Moreover,  no  one  contradicts  any 
other,  and  no  one  says  what  is  untrue. 

Recalling  what  was  said  about  our  having  to  deal  not 
with  different  human  authors  but  with  one  Divine  Author, 
may  not  the  Holy  Spirit  here  have  chosen  to  emphasize  some 
one  particular  fact,  or  phase  of  a  fact  of  the  inscription  for  a 
specific  and  important  end?  Examine  the  records  to  deter- 
mine what  this  fact  may  have  been.  Observe  that  whatever 
else  is  omitted,  all  the  narratives  record  the  momentous  cir- 
cumstances that  the  Sufferer  on  the  cross  was  THE  KING 
OF  THE  JEWS. 

Could  there  have  been  a  cause  for  this?  What  was  the 
charge  preferred  against  Jesus  by  His  accusers?  Was  He 
not  rejected  and  crucified  because  He  said  He  was  the  King 
of  the  Jews?  Was  not  this  the  central  idea  Pilate  was  provi- 
dentially guided  to  express  in  the  inscription?  And  if  so, 
was  it  not  that  to  which  the  evangelists  should  bear  witness? 

189 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

And  should  not  that  witness  have  been  borne  in  a  way  to  dis- 
pel the  thought  of  collusion  in  the  premises?  And  did  not 
this  involve  a  variety  of  narrative  which  should  at  the  same 
time  be  in  harmony  with  truth  and  fact?  And  do  we  not 
have  this  very  thing  in  the  four  gospels? 

These  accounts  supplement,  but  do  not  contradict  each 
other.  We  place  them  before  the  eye  in  the  order  in  which 
they  are  recorded. 

This  is  Jesus  THE  KING  OF  THE  JEWS 

THE  KING  OF  THE  JEWS 

This  is  THE  KING  OF  THE  JEWS 

Jesus  of  Nazareth  THE  KING  OF  THE  JEWS 

The  entire  inscription  evidently  was  "This  is  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  the  King  of  the  Jews,"  but  we  submit  that  the  fore- 
going presents  a  reasonable  argument  for  the  differences  in 
the  records. 

3.  There  is  the  variety  in  style.  Some  think  that  if  all 
the  writers  were  alike  inspired  and  the  inspiration  extended 
to  their  words,  they  must  all  possess  the  same  style — as  if 
the  Holy  Spirit  had  but  one  style! 

Literary  style  is  a  method  of  selecting  words  and  putting 
sentences  together  which  stamps  an  author's  work  with  the 
influence  of  his  habits,  his  condition  in  society,  his  education, 
his  reasoning,  his  experience,  his  imagination  and  his  genius. 
These  give  his  mental  and  moral  physiognomy  and  make  up 
his  style. 

But  is  not  God  free  to  act  with  or  without  these  fixed 
laws?  There  are  no  circumstances  which  tinge  His  views  or 
reasonings,  and  He  has  no  idiosyncrasies  of  speech,  and  no 
mother  tongue  through  which  He  expresses  His  character,  or 
leaves  the  finger  mark  of  genius  upon  His  literary  fabrics. 

It  is  a  great  fallacy  then,  as  Dr.  Thomas  Armitage  once 

190 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

said,  to  suppose  that  uniformity  of  verbal  style  must  have 
marked  God's  authorship  in  the  Bible,  had  He  selected  its 
words.  As  the  author  of  all  styles,  rather  does  He  use  them 
all  at  His  pleasure.  He  bestows  all  the  powers  of  mental  in- 
dividuality upon  His  instruments,  for  using  the  scriptures, 
and  then  uses  their  powers  as  He  will  to  express  His  mind 
by  them. 

Indeed,  the  variety  of  style  is  a  necessary  proof  of  the 
freedom  of  the  human  writers,  and  it  is  this  which  among 
other  things  convinces  us  that,  however  controlled  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  they  were  not  mere  machines  in  what  they  wrote. 
Consider  God's  method  in  nature.  In  any  department  of 
vegetable  life  there  may  be  but  one  genus,  while  its  members 
are  classified  into  a  thousand  species.  From  the  bulbous  root 
come  the  tulip,  the  hyacinth,  the  crocus,  and  the  lily  in  every 
shape  and  shade,  without  any  cause  either  of  natural  chem- 
istry or  culture.  It  is  exclusively  attributable  to  the  variety 
of  styles  which  the  mind  of  God  devises.  And  so  in  the 
sacred  writings.  His  mind  is  seen  in  the  infinite  variety  of 
expression  which  dictates  the  wording  of  every  book.  To 
quote  Armitage  again,  *'I  cannot  tell  how  the  Holy  Spirit 
suggested  the  words  to  the  writers  any  more  than  some  other 
man  can  tell  how  He  suggested  the  thoughts  to  them.  But 
if  diversity  of  expression  proves  that  He  did  not  choose  the 
words,  the  diversity  of  ideas  proves  that  He  did  not  dictate 
tlie  thoughts,  for  the  one  is  as  varied  as  the  other." 

William  Cullen  Bryant  was  a  newspaper  man  but  a  poet ; 
Edmund  Clarence  Stedman  was  a  Wall  Street  broker  and 
also  a  poet.  What  a  difference  in  style  there  was  between 
their  editorials  and  commercial  letters  on  the  one  hand,  and 
their  poetry  on  the  other!  Is  God  more  limited  than  a  man? 
4.  There  are  certain  declarations  of  scripture  itself. 
191 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

Does  not  Paul  say  in  one  or  two  places  "I  speak  as  a  man/' 
or  ''After  the  manner  of  man"?  Assuredly,  but  is  he  not 
using  the  arguments  common  among  men  for  the  sake  of 
elucidating  a  point?  And  may  he  not  as  truly  be  led  of  the 
Spirit  to  do  that,  and  to  record  it,  as  to  do  or  say  anything 
else?  Of  course,  what  he  quotes  from  men  is  not  of  the 
same  essential  value  as  what  he  receives  directly  from  God, 
but  the  record  of  the  quotation  is  as  truly  inspired. 

There  are  two  or  three  other  utterances  of  his  of  this 
character  in  the  7th  chapter  of  i  Corinthians,  where  he  is 
treating  of  marriage.  At  verse  6  he  says,  "I  speak  this  by 
permission,  not  of  commandment,"  and  what  he  means  has 
no  reference  to  the  source  of  his  message  but  the  subject  of 
it.  In  contradiction  to  the  false  teaching  of  some,  he  says 
Christians  are  permitted  to  marry,  but  not  commanded  to  do 
so.  At  verse  10  he  says,  "Unto  the  married  I  command,  yet 
not  I,  but  the  Lord,"  while  at  verse  12  there  follows,  "but  to 
the  rest  speak  I,  not  the  Lord."  Does  he  declare  himself  in- 
spired in  the  first  instance,  and  not  in  the  second?  By  no 
means,  but  in  the  first  he  is  alluding  to  what  the  Lord  spake 
on  the  subject  while  here  in  the  flesh,  and  in  the  second  to 
what  he,  Paul,  is  adding  thereto  on  the  authority  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  speaking  through  him.  In  other  words,  putting  his 
own  utterances  on  equality  with  those  of  our  Lord,  he  simply 
confirms  their  inspiration. 

At  verse  40  he  uses  a  puzzling  expression,  "I  think  also 
that  I  have  the  Spirit  of  God."  As  we  are  contending  only 
for  an  inspired  record,  it  would  seem  easy  to  say  that  there 
he  records  a  doubt  as  to  whether  he  was  inspired,  and  hence 
everywhere  else  in  the  absence  of  such  record  of  doubt  the 
inspiration  is  to  be  assumed.     But  this  would  be  begging  the 

192 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

question,  and  we  prefer  the  solution  of  others  that  the  answer 
is  found  in  the  condition  of  the  Corinthian  church  at  that 
time.  His  enemies  had  sought  to  counteract  his  teachings, 
claiming  that  they  had  the  Spirit  of  God.  Referring  to  the 
claim,  he  says  with  justifiable  irony,  "I  think  also  that  I  have 
the  Spirit  of  God"  (R.  V.).  '1  think"  in  the  mouth  of  one 
having  apostolic  authority,  says  Professor  Watts,  may  be 
taken  as  carrying  the  strongest  assertion  of  the  judgment  in 
question.  The  passage  is  something  akin  to  another  in  the 
same  epistle  at  the  14th  chapter,  verse  37,  where  he  says,  "If 
any  man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual,  let  him 
acknowledge  that  the  things  I  write  unto  you  are  the  com- 
mandments of  the  Lord." 

Time  forbids  further  amplification  on  the  difficulties  and 
objections,  nor  is  it  necessary,  since  there  is  not  one  that 
has  not  been  met  satisfactorily  to  the  man  of  God  and  the 
child  of  faith  again  and  again. 

But  there  is  an  obstacle  to  which  we  would  call  atten- 
tion before  concluding — not  a  difficulty  or  objection,  but  a 
real  obstacle,  especially  to  the  young  and  insufficiently  in- 
structed. It  is  the  illusion  that  this  view  of  inspiration  is 
held  only  by  the  unlearned.  An  illusion  growing  out  of 
still  another  as  to  who  constitute  the  learned. 

There  is  a  popular  impression  that  in  the  sphere  of  the- 
ology and  religion  these  latter  are  limited  for  the  most  part 
to  the  higher  critics  and  their  relatives,  and  the  more  rational- 
istic and  iconoclastic  the  critic  the  more  learned  he  is  esteemed 
to  be.  But  the  fallacy  of  this  is  seen  in  that  the  qualities 
which  make  for  a  philologist,  an  expert  in  human  languages, 
or  which  give  one  a  wide  acquaintance  with  literature  of  any 
kind,  in  other  words  the  qualities  of  the  higher  critic,  depend 

193 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

more  on  memory  than  judgment,  and  do  not  give  the  slightest 
guarantee  that  their  possessors  can  draw  a  sound  conclusion 
from  what  they  know. 

As  the  author  of  "Faith  and  Inspiration"  puts  it,  the 
work  of  such  a  scholar  is  often  like  that  of  a  quarryman  to 
an  architect.  Its  entire  achievement,  though  immensely  valu- 
able in  its  place,  is  just  a  mass  of  raw  and  formless  material 
until  a  mind  gifted  in  a  different  direction,  and  possessing 
the  necessary  taste  and  balance,  shall  reduce  or  put  it  into 
shape  for  use.  The  perplexities  of  astronomers  touching  Hal- 
ley's  comet  is  in  point.  They  knew  facts  that  common  folks 
did  not  know,  but  when  they  came  to  generalize  upon  them, 
the  man  on  the  street  knew  that  he  should  have  looked  in  the 
west  for  the  phenomenon  when  they  bade  him  look  in  the 
east. 

Much  is  said,  for  example,  about  an  acquaintance  with 
Hebrew  and  Greek,  and  no  sensible  man  will  underrate  them 
for  the  theologian  or  the  Bible  scholar,  but  they  are  entirely 
unnecessary  to  an  understanding  of  the  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion or  any  other  doctrine  of  Holy  Writ.  The  intelligent 
reader  of  the  Bible  in  the  English  tongue,  especially  when 
illuminated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  abundantly  able  to  decide 
upon  these  questions  for  himself.  He  cannot  determine  how 
the  Holy  Spirit  operated  on  the  minds  of  the  sacred  penmen 
because  that  is  not  revealed,  but  he  can  determine  on  the 
results  secured  because  that  is  revealed.  He  can  determine 
whether  the  inspiration  covers  all  the  books,  and  whether  it 
includes  not  only  the  substance  but  the  form,  not  only  the 
thoughts  but  the  words. 

We  have  spoken  of  scholars  and  of  the  learned.  Let  us 
come  to  names.  We  suppose  Dr.  Sanday,  of  Oxford,  is  a 
scholar,  and  the  Archbishop  of  Durham,  and  Dean  Burgon, 

194 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

and  Professor  Orr,  of  Glasgow,  and  Principal  Forsyth,  of 
Hackney  College,  and  Sir  Robert  Anderson,  and  Dr.  Kuyper, 
of  Holland,  and  President  Patton,  of  Princeton,  and  Howard 
Osgood,  of  the  Old  Testament  Revision  Committee,  and  Mat- 
thew B.  Riddle  of  the  New,  and  G.  Frederick  Wright  and 
Albert  T.  Clay,  the  archaeologists,  and  Presidents  Moorehead 
and  Mullins,  and  C.  I.  Scofield,  and  Luther  T.  Townsend,  for 
twenty-five  years  professor  in  the  Theological  School  of  Bos- 
ton University,  and  Arthur  T.  Pierson,  of  the  Missionary  Re- 
view of  the  World,  and  a  host  of  other  living  witnesses — 
Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  Baptists, 
Lutherans,  Methodists,  Reformed  Dutch. 

We  had  thought  John  Calvin  a  scholar,  and  the  dis- 
tinguished Bengel,  and  Canon  Faussett,  and  Tregelles,  and 
Auberlen,  and  Van  Oosterzee,  and  Charles  Hodge  and  Henry 
B.  Smith,  and  so  many  more  that  it  were  foolishness  to  recall 
them.  These  men  may  not  stand  for  every  statement  in 
these  pages,  they  maight  not  care  to  be  quoted  as  holding 
technically  the  verbal  theory  of  inspiration  for  reasons  already 
named,  but  they  will  affirm  the  heart  of  the  contention  and 
testify  to  their  belief  in  an  inspiration  of  the  Sacred  Oracles 
which  includes  the  words. 

Once  when  the  writer  was  challenged  by  the  editor  of  a 
secular  daily  to  name  a  single  living  scholar  who  thus  be- 
lieved, he  presented  that  of  a  chancellor  of  a  great  university, 
and  was  told  that  he  was  not  the  kind  of  scholar  that  was 
meant !  The  kind  of  scholar  not  infrequently  meant  by  such 
opposers  is  the  one  who  is  seeking  to  destroy  faith  in  the 
Bible  as  the  Word  of  God,  and  to  substitute  in  its  place  a 
Bible  of  his  own  making. 

The  Outlook  had  an  editorial  recently,  entitled  ''Whom 
Shall  We  Believe?"  in  which  the  writer  reaffirmed  the  plati- 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

tude  that  living  is  a  vital  much  more  than  an  intellectual 
process,  and  that  truth  of  the  deeper  kind  is  distilled  out  of 
experience  rather  th^n  logical  processes.  This  is  the  reason, 
he  said,  why  many  things  arc  hidden  from  the  so-called  wise, 
who  follow  formal  methods  of  exact  observation,  and  are 
revealed  to  babes  and  sucklings  who  know  nothing  of  these 
methods,  but  are  deep  in  the  process  of  living.  No  spectator 
ever  yet  understood  a  great  contemporary  human  movement 
into  which  he  did  not  enter. 

Does  this  explain  why  the  cloistered  scholar  is  unable 
to  accept  the  supernatural  inspiration  of  the  scriptures  while 
the  men  on  the  firing  line  of  the  Lord's  army  believe  in  it  even 
to  the  very  words  ?  Does  it  explain  the  faith  of  our  mission- 
aries in  foreign  lands?  Is  this  what  led  J.  Hudson  Taylor 
to  Inland  China,  and  Dr.  Guinness  to  establish  the  work  upon 
the  Congo,  and  George  Miieller  and  William  Quarrier  to 
support  the  orphans  at  Bristol  and  Bridge  of  Weir?  Is 
this — the  belief  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Bible — the 
secret  of  the  evangelistic  power  of  D.  L.  Moody,  and  Chap- 
man, and  Torrey,  and  Gipsy  Smith,  and  practically  every 
evangelist  in  the  field,  for  to  the  extent  of  our  acquaintance 
there  are  none  of  these  who  doubt  it?  Does  this  tell  why 
"the  best  sellers  on  the  market,"  at  least  among  Christian 
people,  have  been  the  devotional  and  expository  books  of  An- 
drew Murray,  and  Miller  and  Meyer,  and  writers  of  that 
stamp?  Is  this  why  the  plain  people  have  loved  to  listen  to 
preachers  like  Spurgeon,  and  McLaren,  and  Campbell  Mor- 
gan, and  Len  Broughton  and  A.  C.  Dixon  and  have  passed 
by  men  of  the  other  kind  ?  It  is,  in  a  word,  safe  to  challenge 
the  whole  Christian  world  for  the  name  of  a  man  who  stands 
oui  as  a  winner  of  souls  who   does  not  believe  in  the  in- 

196 


The  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 

splration  of  the  Bible  as  it  has  been  sought  to  be  explained  in 
these  pages. 

But  we  conclude  with  a  kind  of  concrete  testimony — that 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Amer- 
ica, and  of  a  date  as  recent  as  1893.  The  writer  is  not  a 
Presbyterian,  and  therefore  with  the  better  grace  can  ask 
his  readers  to  consider  the  character  and  intellect  represented 
in  such  an  AssemWy.  Here  are  some  of  our  greatest  mer- 
chants, our  greatest  jurists,  our  greatest  educators,  our  great- 
est statesmen,  as  well  as  our  greatest  missionaries,  evangelists 
and  theologians.  There  may  be  seen  as  able  and  august  a 
gathering  of  representatives  of  Christianity  in  other  places 
and  on  other  occasions,  but  few  that  can  surpass  it.  For 
sobriety  of  thought,  for  depth  as  well  as  breadth  of  learning, 
for  wealth  of  spiritual  experience,  for  honesty  of  utterance, 
and  virility  of  conviction,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  America  must  command  attention  and 
respect  throughout  the  w^orld.  And  this  is  w^hat  it  said  on 
the  subject  we  are  now  considering  at  its  gathering  in  the 
city  of  Washington,  the  capital  of  the  nation,  at  the  date 
named : 

'THE  BIBLE  AS  WE  NOW  HAVE  IT,  IN  ITS 
VARIOUS  TRANSLATIONS  AND  REVISIONS,  WHEN 
FREED  FROM  ALL  ERRORS  AND  MISTAKES  OF 
TRANSLATORS,  COPYISTS  AND  PRINTERS,  (IS) 
THE  VERY  WORD  OF  GOD,  AND  CONSEQUENTLY 
WHOLLY  WITHOUT  ERROR." 


197 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

BY  PROFESSOR  JAMES  ORR,  D.  D., 
UNITED    FREE    CHURCH    COLLEGE,    GLASGOW,    SCOTLAND 

It  is  well  known  that  the  last  ten  or  twenty  years  have 
been  marked  by  a  determined  assault  upon  the  truth  of  the 
Virgin  birth  of  Christ.  In  the  year  1892  a  great  controversy 
broke  out  in  Germany,  owing  to  the  refusal  of  a  pastor  named 
Schrempf  to  use  the  Apostles'  Creed  in  baptism  because  of 
disbelief  in  this  and  other  articles.  Schrempf  was  deposed, 
and  an  agitation  commenced  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin 
birth  which  has  grown  in  volume  ever  since.  Other  tenden- 
cies, especially  the  rise  of  an  extremely  radical  school  of  his- 
torical criticism,  added  force  to  the  negative  movement.  The 
attack  is  not  confined,  indeed,  to  the  article  of  the  Virgin 
birth.  It  affects  the  whole  supernatural  estimate  of  Christ — 
His  life.  His  claims.  His  sinlessness.  His  miracles.  His  resur- 
rection from  the  dead.  But  the  Virgin  birth  is  assailed  with 
special  vehemence,  because  it  is  supposed  that  the  evidence 
for  this  miracle  is  more  easily  got  rid  of  than  the  evidence 
for  public  facts,  such  as  the  resurrection.  The  result  is  that 
in  very  many  quarters  the  Virgin  birth  of  Christ  is  openly 
treated  as  a  fable.  Belief  in  it  is  scouted  as  unworthy  of  the 
twentieth  century  intelligence.  The  methods  of  the  oldest 
opponents  of  Christianity  are  revived,  and  it  is  likened  to  the 

198 


The   Virgin  Birth   of  Christ 

Greek  and  Roman  stories,  coarse  and  vile,  of  heroes  who  had 
gods  for  their  fathers.  A  special  point  is  made  of  the  silence 
of  Paul,  and  of  the  other  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  on 
this  alleged  wonder. 

THE   UNHAPPIEST   FEATURE 

It  is  not  only,  however,  in  the  circles  of  unbelief  that 
the  Virgin  birth  is  discredited ;  in  the  church  itself  the  habit 
is  spreading  of  casting  doubt  upon  the  fact,  or  at  least  of 
regarding  it  as  no  essential  part  of  Christian  faith.  This  is 
the  unhappiest  feature  in  this  unhappy  controversy.  Till  re- 
cently no  one  dreamed  of  denying  that,  in  the  sincere  pro- 
fession of  Christianity,  this  article,  which  has  stood  from  the 
beginning  in  the  forefront  of  all  the  great  creeds  of  Christen- 
dom, was  included.  Now  it  is  different.  The  truth  and  value 
of  the  article  of  the  Virgin  birth  are  challenged.  The  article, 
it  is  affirmed,  did  not  belong  to  the  earliest  Christian  tradition, 
and  the  evidence  for  it  is  not  strong.     Therefore,  let  it  drop. 

THE   COMPANY   IT   KEEPS 

From  the  side  of  criticism,  science,  mythology,  history 
and  comparative  religion,  assault  is  thus  made  on  the  article 
long  so  dear  to  the  hearts  of  Christians  and  rightly  deemed 
by  them  so  vital  to  their  faith.  For  loud  as  is  the  voice  of 
denial,  one  fact  must  strike  every  careful  observer  of  the 
conflict.  Among  those  who  reject  the  Virgin  birth  of  the 
Lord  few  will  be  found — I  do  not  know  any — who  take  in 
other  respects  an  adequate  view  of  the  Person  and  work  of 
the  Saviour.  It  is  surprising  how  clearly  the  line  of  division 
here  reveals  itself.     My  statement  publicly  made  and  printed 


The  Higher  Criticisiu  and   The  Kczu  Theology 

h^s  never  been  confuted,  that  those  who  accept  a  full  doctrine 
of  the  incarnation — that  is,  of  a  true  entrance  of  the  eternal 
Son  of  God  into  our  nature  for  the  purposes  of  man's  sal- 
vation— with  hardly  an  exception  accept  with  it  the  doctrine 
of  the  Virgin  birth  of  Christ,  while  those  who  repudiate  or 
deny  this  article  of  faith  either  hold  a  lowered  view  of  Christ's 
Person,  or,  more  commonly,  reject  His  supernatural  claims 
altogether.  It  v/ill  not  be  questioned,  at  any  rate,  that  the 
great  bulk  of  the  opponents  of  the  Virgin  birth — those  who 
are  conspicuous  by  writing  against  it — are  in  the  latter  class. 

A   CAVIL  ANSWERED 

This  really  is  an  answer  to  the  cavil  often  heard  that, 
whether  true  or  not,  the  Virgin  birth  is  not  of  essential  im- 
portance. It  is  not  essential,  it  is  urged,  to  Christ's  sinless- 
ness,  for  that  w^ould  have  been  secured  equally  though  Christ 
had  been  bom  of  two  parents.  And  it  is  not  essential  to  the 
incarnation.  A  hazardous  thing,  surely,  for  erring  mortals 
to  judge  of  what  was  and  was  not  essential  in  so  stupendous 
an  event  as  the  bringing  in  of  the  "first-begotten"  into  the 
world !  But  the  Christian  instinct  has  ever  penetrated  deeper. 
Rejection  of  the  Virgin  birth  seldom,  if  ever,  goes  by  itself. 
As  the  late  Prof.  A.  B.  Bruce  said,  with  denial  of  the  Virgin 
birth  is  apt  to  go  denial  of  the  virgin  life.  The  incarnation 
is  felt  by  those  who  think  seriously  to  involve  a  miracle  in 
Christ's  earthly  origin.  This  will  become  clearer  as  we  ad- 
vance. 

THE   CASE   STATED 

It  is  the  object  of  this  paper  to  show  that  those  who  take 
the  lines  of  denial  9a  the  Virgin  birth  just  sketched  do  great 

209 


The   Virgin   Birth   of  Christ 

injustice  to  the  evidence  and  importance  of  the  doctrine  they 
reject.  The  evidence,  if  not  of  the  same  pubHc  kind  as  that 
for  the  resurrection,  is  far  stronger  than  the  objector  allows, 
and  the  fact  denied  enters  far  more  vitally  into  the  essence  of 
the  Christian  faith  than  he  supposes.  Placed  in  its  right  set- 
ting among  the  other  truths  of  the  Christian  religion,  it  is 
not  only  no  stumbling-block  to  faith,  but  is  felt  to  fit  in  with 
self-evidencing  power  into  the  connection  of  these  other 
truths,  and  to  furnish  the  very  explanation  that  is  needed  of 
Christ's  holy  and  supernatural  Person.  The  ordinary  Chris- 
tian is  a  witness  here.  In  reading  the  Gospels,  he  feels  no 
incongruity  in  passing  from  the  narratives  of  the  Virgin  birth 
to  the  wonderful  story  of  Christ's  life  in  the  chapters  that 
follow,  then  from  these  to  the  pictures  of  Christ's  divine  dig- 
nity given  in  John  and  Paul.  The  whole  is  of  one  piece :  the 
Virgin  birth  is  as  natural  at  the  beginning  of  the  life  of  such 
an  One — the  divine  Son — as  the  resurrection  is  at  the  end. 
And  the  more  closely  the  matter  is  considered,  the  stronger 
does  this  impression  grow.  It  is  only  when  the  scriptural 
conception  of  Christ  is  parted  with  that  various  difficulties 
and  doubts  come  in. 

A   SUPERFICIAL  VIEW 

It  is,  in  truth,  a  very  superficial  way  of  speaking  or  think- 
ing of  the  Virgin  birth  to  say  that  nothing  depends  on  this 
belief  for  our  estimate  of  Christ.  Who  that  reflects  on  the 
subject  carefully  can  fail  to  see  that  if  Christ  was  virgin 
born — if  He  was  truly  "conceived,"  as  the  creed  says,  "by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary" — there  must  of 
necessity  enter  a  supernatural  element  into  His  Person ;  while, 
if  Christ  was  sinless,  much  more  if  He  was  the  very  Word 

201 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

of  God  incarnate,  there  must  have  been  a  miracle — the  most 
stupendous  miracle  in  the  universe — in  His  origin?  If  Christ 
was,  as  John  and  Paul  affirm  and  His  church  has  ever  be- 
lieved, the  Son  of  God  made  flesh,  the  second  Adam,  the  new 
redeeming  Head  of  the  race,  a  miracle  was  to  be  expected 
in.  His  earthly  origin ;  without  a  miracle  such  a  Person  could 
never  have  been.  Why  then  cavil  at  the  narratives  which 
declare  the  fact  of  such  a  miracle?  Who  does  not  see  that 
the  Gospel  history  would  have  been  incomplete  without  them  ? 
Inspiration  here  only  gives  to  faith  what  faith  on  its  own 
grounds  imperatively  demands  for  its  perfect  satisfaction. 

THE  HISTORICAL  SETTING 

It  is  time  now  to  come  to  the  Scripture  itself,  and  to  look 
at  the  fact  of  the  Virgin  birth  in  its  historical  setting,  and  its 
relation  with  other  truths  of  the  Gospe).  As  preceding  the 
examination  of  the  historical  evidence,  a  little  may  be  said, 
first,  on  the  Old  Testament  preparation.  Was  there  any  such 
preparation?  Some  would  say  there  was  not,  but  this  is  not 
God's  way,  and  we  may  look  with  confidence  for  at  least  some 
indications  which  point  in  the  direction  of  the  New  Testament 
event. 

THE  FIRST   PROMISE 

One's  mind  turns  to  that  oldest  of  all  evangelical  prom- 
ises, that  the  seed  of  the  woman  would  bruise  the  head  of  the 
serpent.  "I  will  put  enmity,"  says  Jehovah  to  the  serpent- 
tempter,  "between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed 
and  her  seed ;  he  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise 
his  heel"  (Genesis  3:15.  R.  V.)-  It  is  a  forceless  weaken- 
ing of  this  first  word  of  Gospel  in  the  Bible  to  explain  it  of  a 

202 


The   J'^irgin  Birth   of  Christ 

lasting  feud  between  the  race  of  men  and  the  brood  of  ser- 
pents. The  serpent,  as  even  Dr.  Driver  attests,  is  "the  repre- 
sentative of  the  power  of  evil" — in  later  Scripture,  *'he  that 
is  called  the  Devil  and  Satan"  (Rev.  12:9) — and  the  defeat 
he  sustains  from  the  woman's  seed  is  a  moral  and  spiritual 
victory.  The  "seed"  who  should  destroy  him  is  described  em- 
phatically as  the  woman's  seed.  It  was  the  woman  through 
whom  sin  had  entered  the  race;  by  the  seed  of  the  woman 
would  salvation  come.  The  early  church  writers  often  pressed 
this  analogy  between  Eve  and  the  Virgin  Mary.  We  may  re- 
ject any  element  of  over-exaltation  of  Alary  they  connected 
with  it,  but  it  remains  significant  that  this  peculiar  phrase 
should  be  chosen  to  designate  the  future  deliverer.  I  cannot 
believe  the  choice  to  be  of  accident.  The  promise  to  Abraham 
was  that  in  his  seed  the  families  of  the  earth  would  be  blessed; 
there  the  male  is  emphasized,  but  here  it  is  the  zvoman — the 
woman  distinctively.  There  is,  perhaps,  as  good  scholars  have 
thought,  an  allusion  to  this  promise  in  i  Timothy  2:15,  where, 
with  allusion  to  Adam  and  Eve,  it  is  said,  "But  she  shall  be 
saved  through  her   (or  the)  child-bearing"   (R.  V.). 

THE    IM MANUEL    PROPHECY  . 

The  idea  of  the  Messiah,  gradually  gathering  to  itself  the 
attributes  of  a  divine  King,  reaches  one  of  its  clearest  ex- 
pressions in  the  great  Immanuel  prophecy,  extending  from 
Isaiah  7  to  9  7,  and  centering  in  the  declaration :  "The  Lord 
Himself  will  give  you  [the  unbelieving  Ahaz]  a  sign;  behold, 
a  virgin  shall  conceive,  and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  his  name 
Immanuel"  (Isa.  7:14;  Cf.  8:8,  10).  This  is  none  other  than 
the  child  of  wonder  extolled  in  chapter  9 :6,  7 :  "For  unto  us 
a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given;  and  the  government 

203 


The  Higher  Criticism   and   The  Nczv  Theology 

shall  be  upon  his  slioulder;  and  his  name  shall  be  called  Won- 
derful, Counsellor,  The  mighty  God,  The  everlasting  Father, 
[Father  of  Eternity],  The  Prince  of  Peace.  Of  the  increase 
of  his  government  and  peace  there  shall  be  no  end,  upon  the 
throne  of  David,  and  upon  his  kingdom,"  etc.  This  is  the 
prophecy  quoted  as  fulfilled  in  Christ's  birth  in  Matt,  i  123, 
and  it  seems  also  alluded  to  in  the  glowing  promises  to  Mary 
in  Luke  1 132,  33.  It  is  pointed  out  in  objection  that  the  term 
rendered  "virgin"  in  Isaiah  does  not  necessarily  bear  this 
meaning ;  it  denotes  properly  only  a  young  unmarried  woman. 
The  context,  however,  seems  clearly  to  lay  an  emphasis  on 
the  unmarried  state,  and  the  translators  of  the  Greek  version 
of  the  Old  Testament  (the  Septuagint)  plainly  so  understood 
it  when  they  rendered  it  by  parthenos,  a  word  which  does 
mean  "virgin."  The  tendency  in  many  quarters  now  is  to  ad- 
mit this  (Dr.  Cheyne,  etc.),  and  even  to  seek  an  explanation 
of  it  in  alleged  Babylonian  beliefs  in  a  virgin-birth.  This  last, 
however,  is  quite  illusory\  It  is,  on  the  other  hand,  singular 
that  the  Jews  themselves  do  not  seem  to  have  applied  this 
prophecy  at  any  time  to  the  Messiah — a  fact  which  disproves 
the  theory  that  it  was  this  text  which  suggested  the  story  of  a 
Virgin  birth  to  the  early   disciples. 

ECHOES  IN  OTHER  SCRIPTURES 

It  w^as,  indeed,  when  one  thinks  of  it,  only  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  there  was  to  be  something  exceptional  and  extraor- 
dinary in  the  birth  of  this  child  called  Immanuel  that  it  could 
have  afforded  to  Ahaz  a  sign  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  throne 
of  David  on  the  scale  of  magnitude  proposed  ("Ask  it  either 


*  For   the    evidence,    see   my  volume   on  "The  Virgin   Birth,' 
Lecture  VII. 

204 


The  Virgin  Birth   of  Christ 

in  the  depth,  or  in  the  height  above."  Vp".  io).  We  look, 
therefore,  with  interest  to  see  if  there  are  any  echoes  or  sug- 
gestions of  the  idea  of  this  passage  in  other  prophetic  scrip- 
tures. They  are  naturally  not  many,  but  they  do  not  seem  to 
be  altogether  wanting.  There  is,  first,  the  remarkable  Beth- 
lehem prophecy  in  i\Jicah  5  :2,  3 — also  quoted  as  fulfilled  in 
the  nativity  (Matt.  2:5,  6) — connected  with  the  saying: 
"Therefore  will  he  give  them  up,  until  the  time  that  she  who 
travaileth  hath  brought  forth''  ("The  King  from  Bethlehem," 
says  Delitzsch,  "who  has  a  nameless  one  as  mother,  and  of 
whose  father  there  is  no  mention").  Micah  was  Isaiah's  con- 
temporary, and  when  the  close  relation  between  the  two  is  con- 
sidered (Cf.  Isa.  2:2-4,  with  ^licah  4:1-3),  it  is  difficult  not 
to  recognize  in  his  oracle  an  expansion  of  Isaiah's.  In  the 
same  line  would  seem  to  lie  the  enigmatic  utterance  in  Jer. 
31:22:  "For  Jehovah  hath  created  a  new  thing  in  the  earth: 
a  woman  shall  encompass  a  man"  (thus  Delitzsch,  etc.). 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

The  germs  now  indicated  in  prophetic  scriptures  had  ap- 
parently borne  no  fruit  in  Jewish  expectations  of  the  Messiah, 
w-hen  the  event  took  place  which  to  Christian  minds  made  them 
luminous  with  predictive  import.  In  Bethlehem  of  Judea,  as 
Micah  had  foretold,  was  born  of  a  virgin  mother  He  whose 
"goings  forth"  were  "from  of  old,  from  everlasting"  (Micah 
5:2;  Matt.  2:6).  Matthew,  who  quotes  the  first  part  of  the 
verse,  can  hardly  have  been  ignorant  of  the  hint  of  pre-exist- 
ence  it  contained.  This  brings  us  to  the  testimony  to  the 
miraculous  birth  of  Christ  in  our  first  and  third  Gospels — the 
only  Gospels  which  record  the  circumstances  of  Christ's  birth 
at  all.     By  general  consent  the  narratives  in  Matthew  (chap- 


The  Higher  Criticism   and   The  Nezv  Theology 

ters  I,  2)  and  in  Luke  (chapters  i,  2)  are  independent — that 
is,  they  are  not  derived  one  from  the  other — yet  they  both 
affirm,  in  detailed  story,  that  Jesus,  conceived  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  born  of  a  pure  virgin,  ]\Iary  of  Naz- 
areth, espoused  to  Joseph,  whose  wife  she  afterwards  became. 
The  birth  took  place  at  Bethlehem,  whither  Joseph  and  }^Iary 
had  gone  for  enrollment  in  a  census  that  was  being  taken.  The 
announcement  was  made  to  !^Iary  beforehand  by  an  angel,  and 
the  birth  was  preceded,  attended,  and  followed  by  remarkable 
events  that  are  narrated  (birth  of  the  Baptist,  with  annuncia- 
tions, angelic  vision  to  the  shepherds,  visit  of  wise  men  from 
the  east,  etc.).  The  narratives  should  be  carefully  read  at 
length  to  understand  the  comments  that  follow. 

THE   TESTIMONY   TESTED 

There  is  no  doubt,  therefore,  about  the  testimony  to  the 
\'irgin  birth,  and  the  question  which  now  arises  is — What  is 
the  value  of  these  parts  of  the  Gospels  as  evidence?  Are  they 
genuine  parts  of  the  Gospels?  Or  are  they  late  and  untrust- 
worthy additions  ?  From  what  sources  may  they  be  presumed 
to  be  derived?  It  is  on  the  truth  of  the  narratives  that  our 
belief  in  the  Virgin  birth  depends.  Can  they  be  trusted  ?  Or 
are  they  mere  fables,  inventions,  legends,  to  which  no  credit 
can  be  attached  ? 

The  answer  to  several  of  these  questions  can  be  given  in 
vcr}'  brief  fprm.  The  narratives  of  the  nativity  in  Matthew 
and  Luke  are  undoubtedly  genuine  parts  of  their  respective 
Gospels.  They  have  been  there  since  ever  the  Gospels  them- 
selves had  an  existence.  The  proof  of  this  is  convincing. 
The  chapters  in  question  are  found  in  every  manuscript  and 
version  of  tlie  Gospels  known  to  exist.     There  are  hundreds 

206 


The   Virgin  Birth   of  Christ 

of  manuscripts,  some  of  them  very  old,  belonging-  to  different 
parts  of  the  world,  and  many  versions  in  different  languages 
(Latin,  Syriac,  Egyptian,  etc.),  but  these  narratives  of  the 
Virgin  birth  are  found  in  all.  We  know,  indeed,  that  a  section 
of  the  early  Jewish  Christians — the  Ebionites,  as  they  are 
commonly  called — possessed  a  Gospel  based  on  IMatthew  from 
which  the  chapters  on  the  nativity  were  absent.  But  this  was 
not  the  real  Gospel  of  jMatthew :  It  was  at  best  a  mutilated  and 
corrupted  form  of  it.  The  genuine  Gospel,  as  the  manuscripts 
attest,  always  had  these  chapters. 

Next,  as  to  the  Gospels  themselves,  they  were  not  of  late 
and  non-apostolic  origin;  but  were  written  by  apostolic  men, 
and  were  from  the  first  accepted  and  circulated  in  the  church 
as  trustworthy  embodiments  of  sound  apostolic  tradition. 
Luke's  Gospel  was  from  Luke's  own  pen — its  genuineness  has 
recently  received  a  powerful  vindication  from  Prof.  Harnack, 
of  Berlin — and  Matthew's  Gospel,  while  some  dubiety  still 
rests  on  its  original  language  (Aramaic  or  Greek),  passed 
without  challenge  in  the  early  church  as  the  genuine  Gospel 
of  the  Apostle  I\Iatthew.  Criticism  has  more  recently  raised 
the  question  whether  it  is  only  the  "groundwork"  of  the  dis- 
courses (the  "Logia")  that  comes  directly  from  Matthew. 
However  this  may  be  settled,  it  is  certain  that  the  Gospel  in 
its  Greek  form  always  passed  as  Matthew's.  It  must,  there- 
fore, if  not  written  by  him,  have  had  his  immediate  authority. 
The  narratives  come  to  us,  accordingly,  with  high  apostolic 
sanction. 

SOURCES  OF   THE   NARRATIVES 

As  to  the  sources  of  the  narratives,  not  a  little  can  be 
gleaned  from  the  study  of  their  internal  character.  Here  two 
facts  reveal  themselves.    The  first  is  that  the  narrative  of  Luke 

207 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Nczv  Theology 

is  based  on  some  old,  archaic,  highly  original  Aramaic  writing. 
Its  Aramaic  character  gleams  through  its  every  part.  In 
style,  tone,  conception,  it  is  highly  primitive — emanates,  appar- 
ently, from  that  circle  of  devout  people  in  Jerusalem  to  whom 
its  own  pages  introduce  us  (Luke  2:25,  36-38).  It  has,  there- 
fore, the  highest  claim  to  credit.  The  second  fact  is  even 
more  important.  A  perusal  of  the  narratives  shows  clearly — 
what  might  have  been  expected — that  the  information  they 
convey  was  derived  from  no  lower  source  than  Joseph  and 
Mary  themselves.  This  is  a  marked  feature  of  contrast  in  the 
narratives — that  Matthew's  narrative  is  all  told  from  Joseph's 
point  of  view,  and  Luke's  is  all  told  from  Mary's.  The  signs 
of  this  are  unmistakable.  IMatthew  tells  about  Joseph's  diffi- 
culties and  action,  and  says  little  or  nothing  about  Mary's 
thoughts  and  feelings.  Luke  tells  much  about  Mary — even 
her  inmost  thoughts — but  says  next  to  nothing  directly  about 
Joseph.  The  narratives,  in  short,  are  not,  as  some  would  have 
it,  contradictory,  but  are  independent  and  complementary.  The 
one  supplements  and  completes  the  other.  Both  together  are 
needed  to  give  the  whole  story.  They  bear  in  themselves  the 
stamp  of  truth,  honesty,  and  purity,  and  are  worthy  of  all 
acceptation,  as  they  were  evidently  held  to  be  in  the  early 
church. 

UNFOUNDED  OBJECTIONS 

Against  the  acceptance  of  these  early,  well-attested  narra- 
tives, what,  now,  have  the  objectors  to  alkge?  I  pass  by  the 
attempts  to  show,  by  critical  elimination  (expurging  Luke 
1 :35,  and  some  other  clauses),  that  Luke'r\  narrative  was  not 
a  narrative  of  a  Virgin  birth  at  all.  This  is  a  vain  attempt  in 
face  of  the  testimony  of  manuscript  authorities.  Neither 
need  I  dwell  on  the  alleged  "discrepan-cies"  in  the  genealogie? 

208 


TJic   Virgin  Birth   of  Christ 

and  narratives.  These  are  not  serious,  when  the  independence 
and  different  standpoints  of  the  narratives  are  acknowledged. 
The  genealogies,  tracing  the  descent  of  Christ  from  David 
along  different  lines,  present  problems  which  exercise  the 
minds  of  scholars,  but  they  do  not  touch  the  central  fact  of  the 
belief  of  both  Evangelists  in  the  birth  of  Jesus  from  a  vir- 
gin. Even  in  a  Syriac  manuscript  which  contains  the  certainly 
wrong  reading,  ^'J^s^ph  begat  Jesus,"  the  narrative  goes  on, 
as  usual,  to  recount  the  Virgin  birth.  It  is  not  a  contradiction, 
if  Matthew  is  silent  on  the  earlier  residence  in  Nazareth-  'vhich 
Luke's  object  led  him  fully  to  describe. 

SILENCE  OF  MARK  AND  JOHN 

The  objection  on  which  most  stress  is  laid  (apart  from 
what  is  called  the  evidently  ''mythical"  character  of  the  narra- 
tives) is  the  silence  on  the  Virgin  birth  in  the  remaining  Gos- 
pels, and  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament.  This,  it  is  held, 
conclusively  proves  that  the  Virgin  birth  was  not  known  in 
the  earliest  Christian  circles,  and  was  a  legend  of  later  origin. 
As  respects  the  Gospels — Mark  and  John — the  objection  would 
only  apply  if  it  was  the  design  of  these  Gospels  to  narrate,  as 
the  others  do,  the  circumstances  of  the  nativity.  But  this  was 
evidently  not  their  design.  Both  Mark  and  John  knew  that 
Jesus  had  a  human  birth — an  infancy  and  early  life — and  that 
His  mother  was  called  Mary,  but  of  deliberate  purpose  they 
tell  us  nothing  about  it.  Mark  begins  his  Gospel  with  Christ's 
entrance  on  His  public  ministry,  and  says  nothing  of  the  period 
before,  especially  of  how  Jesus  came  to  be  called  "the  Son  of 
God"  (Mark  i:i).  John  traces  the  divine  descent  of  Jesus, 
and  tells  us  that  the  "Word  became  flesh"  (John  1 114)  ;  but 
bow  this  miracle  of  becoming  flesh  was  wrought  he  does  not 

209 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

say.  It  did  not  lie  within  his  plan.  He  knew  the  church  tradi- 
tion on  the  subject:  he  had  the  Gospels  narrating  the  birth  of 
Jesus  from  the  Virgin  in  his  hands:  and  he  takes  the  knowl- 
edge of  their  teaching  for  granted.  To  speak  of  contradiction 
in  a  case  like  this  is  out  of  the  question. 

SILENCE  OF  PAUL 

How  far  Paul  was  acquainted  with  the  facts  of  Christ's 
earthly  origin  it  is  not  easy  to  say.  To  a  certain  extent  these 
facts  would  always  be  regarded  as  among  the  privacies  of  the 
innermost  Christian  circles — so  long  at  least  as  Mary  lived — 
and  the  details  may  not  have  been  fully  known  till  the  Gospels 
were  published.  Paul  admittedly  did  not  base  his  preaching 
of  his  Gospel  on  these  private,  interior  matters,  but  on  the 
broad,  public  facts  of  Christ's  ministry,  death,  and  resurrec- 
tion. It  would  be  going  too  far,  however,  to  infer  from  this 
that  Paul  had  no  knowledge  of  the  miracle  of  Christ's  birth. 
Luke  was  Paul's  companion,  and  doubtless  shared  with  Paul 
all  the  knowledge  which  he  himself  had  gathered  on  this  and 
other  subjects.  One  thing  certain  is,  that  Paul  could  not  have 
believed  in  the  divine  dignity,  the  pre-existence,  the  sinless 
perfection,  and  redeeming  headship,  of  Jesus  as  he  did,  and 
not  have  been  convinced  that  His  entrance  into  humanity  was 
no  ordinary  event  of  nature,  but  implied  an  unparalleled 
miracle  of  some  kind.  This  Son  of  God,  who  "emptied"  Him- 
self, who  was  "born  of  a  woman,  born  under  the  law,"  who 
"knew  no  sin"  (Phil.  2:7,  8;  Gal.  4:4;  2  Cor.  5:21),  was  not, 
and  could  not  be,  a  simple  product  of  nature.  God  must  have 
wrought  creatively  in  His  human  origin.  The  Virgin  birth 
would  be  to  Paul  the  most  reasonable  and  credible  of  events. 

210 


The   Virgin   Birth   of  Christ 

So  also  to  John,   who  held  the  same  high  view  of  Christ's 
dignity  and  holiness. 

Christ's  sinlessness  a  proof 

It  is  sometimes  argued  that  a  Virgin  birth  is  no  aid  to  the 
explanation  of  Christ's  sinlessness.  Mary  being  herself  sinful 
in  nature,  it  is  held  the  taint  of  corruption  would  be  conveyed 
by  one  parent  as  really  as  by  two.  It  is  overlooked  that  the 
whole  fact  is  not  expressed  by  saying  that  Jesus  was  born 
of  a  virgin  mother.  There  is  the  other  factor — "conceived 
by  the  Holy  Ghost."  What  happened  was  a  divine,  creative 
miracle  wrought  in  the  production  of  this  new  humanity  which 
secured,  from  its  earliest  germinal  beginnings,  freedom  from 
the  slightest  taint  of  sin.  Paternal  generation  in  such  an  origin 
is  superfluous.  The  birth  of  Jesus  was  not,  as  in  ordinary 
births,  the  creation  of  a  new  personality.  It  was  a  divine  Per- 
son— already  existing — entering  on  this  new  mode  of  exist- 
ence. Miracle  could  alone  eft'ect  such  a  wonder.  Because  His 
human  nature  had  this  miraculous  origin  Christ  was  the  "holy" 
One  from  the  commencement  (Luke  1:35).  Sinless  He  was, 
as  His  whole  life  demonstrated;  but  when,  in  all  time,  did 
natural  generation   give  birth  to  a  sinless  personality? 

THE   EARLY    CHURCH    A   WITNESS 

The  history  of  the  early  church  is  occasionally  appealed  to 
in  witness  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  birth  was  not  primi- 
tive. No  assertion  could  be  more  futile.  The  early  church,  so 
far  as  we  can  trace  it  back,  in  all  its  branches,  held  this  doc- 
trine.   No  Christian  sect  is  known  that  denied  it,  save  the  Jcw- 

211 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Nezv  Theology 

ish  Ebionites  formerly  alluded  to.  The  general  body  of  the 
Jewish  Christians — the  Nazarenes  as  they  are  called — accepted 
it.  Even  the  greater  Gnostic  sects  in  their  own  way  admitted 
it.  Those  Gnostics  who  denied  it  were  repelled  with  all  the 
force  of  the  church's  greatest  teachers.  The  Apostle  John  is 
related  to  have  vehemently  opposed  Cerinthus,  the  earliest 
teacher  with  whom  this  denial  is  connected. 


DISCREDITED  VAGARIES 

What  more  remains  to  be  said?  It  would  be  waste  of 
space  to  follow  the  objectors  into  their  various  theories  of  a 
mythical  origin  of  this  belief.  One  by  one  the  speculations 
advanced  have  broken  down,  and  given  place  to  others — all 
equally  baseless.  The  newest  of  the  theories  seeks  an  origin 
of  the  belief  in  ancient  Babylonia,  and  supposes  the  Jews  to 
have  possessed  the  notion  in  pre-Christian  times.  This  is 
not  only  opposed  to  all  real  evidence,  but  is  the  giving  up  of 
the  contention  that  the  idea  had  its  origin  in  late  Christian 
circles,  and  was  unknown  to  earlier  apostles. 

THE  REAL  CHRIST 

Doctrinally,  it  must  be  repeated  that  the  belief  in  the  Vir- 
gin birth  of  Christ  is  of  the  highest  value  for  the  right  appre- 
hension of  Christ's  unique  and  sinless  personality.  Here  is 
One,  as  Paul  brings  out  in  Romans  5:12  ff,  who,  free  from  sin 
Himself,  and  not  involved  in  the  Adamic  liabilities  of  the  race, 
reverses  the  curse  of  sin  and  death  brought  in  by  the  first 
Adam,  and  establishes  the  reign  of  righteousness  and  life. 
Had  Christ  been  naturally  born,  not  one  of  these  things  could 
be  affirmed  of  Him.    As  one  of  Adam's  race,  not  an  entrant 

212 


The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ 

from  a  higher  sphere,  He  would  have  shared  in  Adam's  cor- 
ruption and  doom — would  Himself  have  required  to  be  re- 
deemed. Through  God's  infinite  mercy,  He  came  from  above, 
inherited  no  guilt,  needed  no  regeneration  or  sanctification, 
but  became  Himself  the  Redeemer,  Regenerator,  Sanctifier, 
for  all  who  receive  Him.  '^Thanks  be  unto  God  for  His  un- 
speakable gift"  (2  Cor.  9:15). 


a:ii 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  CERTAINTY  AND  IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  REAL 

AND  BODILY  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS 

CHRIST  FROM  THE  DEAD 

BY  DR.  R.  A.  TORREY 

The  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead  is  the 
corner  stone  of  Christian  doctrine.  It  is  mentioned  directly 
one  hundred  and  four  (or  more)  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. It  was  the  most  prominent  and  cardinal  point  in  the 
apostolic  testimony.  When  the  apostolic  company,  after  the 
apostasy  of  Judas  Iscariot,  felt  it  necessary  to  complete  their 
number  again  by  the  addition  of  one  to  take  the  place  of 
Judas  Iscariot,  it  was  in  order  that  he  might  "Be  a  witness 
with  us  of  His  resurrection."  (Acts  i  :2i,  22.)  The  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ  was  the  one  point  that  Peter  empha- 
sized in  his  great  sermon  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost.  His  whole 
sermon  centered  in  that  fact.  Its  keynote  was  *This  Jesus 
hath  God  raised  up,  whereof  we  all  are  witnesses"  (Acts  2  132 
of.  vs.  24-31).  When  the  Apostles  were  filled  again  with  the 
Holy  Spirit  some  days  later,  the  one  central  result  was  that 
with  "great  power  gave  the  Apostles  witness  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  Lord  Jesus."  The  central  doctrine  that  the  Apostle 
Paul  preached  to  the  Epicurean  and  Stoic  philosophers  on 
Mars  Hill  was  Jesus  and  the  resurrection.  (Acts  17:18  of. 
Acts  23:6;  I  Cor.  15:15.)  The  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ 
is  one  of  the  two  fundamental  truths  of  the  Gospel,  the  other 
being  His  atoning  death.  Paul  says  in  i  Cor.  15:1,  3,  4, 
"Moreover,  brethren,  I  declare  unto  you  the  gospel  which  I 
preached  unto  you,  which  also  ye  have  received,  and  wherein 

214 


The  Resurrection   of  Jesus   Christ 

ye  stand.  For  I  delivered  unto  you,  first  of  all,  that  which  I 
also  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to 
the  Scriptures;  and  that  he  was  buried,  and  that  he  rose  again 
the  third  day,  according  to  the  Scriptures."  This  was  the 
glad  tidings;  first,  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  and  made 
atonement,  and  second,  that  He  rose  again.  The  crucifixion 
loses  its  meaning  without  the  resurrection.  Without  the  resur- 
rection, the  death  of  Christ  was  only  the  heroic  death  of  a 
noble  martyr.  With  the  resurrection,  it  is  the  atoning  death 
of  the  Son  of  God.  It  shows  that  death  to  be  of  sufficient 
value  to  cover  all  our  sins,  for  it  was  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son 
of  God.  In  it  we  have  an  all-sufficient  ground  for  knowing 
that  the  blackest  sin  is  atoned  for.  Disprove  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ  and  Christian  faith  is  vain.  *Tf  Christ  be  not 
risen,"  cries  Paul,  ''then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your 
faith  is  also  vain"  (i  Cor.  15:14).  And  later  he  adds:  'Tf 
Christ  be  not  risen,  your  faith  is  vain.  You  are  yet  in  your 
sins."  Paul,  as  the  context  clearly  shows,  is  talking  about 
the  bodily  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  one  doctrine  that  has 
power  to  save  any  one  who  believes  it  with  the  heart.  As 
we  read  in  Rom.  10:9:  'Tf  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath 
raised  Him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  he  saved."  To  know 
the  power  of  Christ's  resurrection  is  one  of  the  highest  ambi- 
tions of  the  intelligent  believer,  to  attain  which  he  sacrifices 
all  things  and  counts  them  but  refuse  (Phil.  3:8-10.  R.  V.). 
While  the  literal  bodily  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  corner  stone  of  Christian  doctrine,  it  is  also  the  Gibraltar 
of  Christian  evidence  and  the  Waterloo  of  Infidelity  and  Ra- 
tionalism. If  the  Scriptural  assertions  of  Christ's  resurrection 
can  be  established  as  historic  certainties,  the  claims  and  doc- 

215 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

trines  of  Christianity  rest  upon  an  impregnable  foundation. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from 
the  dead  cannot  be  estabHshed,  Christianity  must  go.  It  was 
a  true  instinct  that  led  a  leading  and  brilliant  agnostic  in  Eng- 
land to  say,  that  there  is  no  use  wasting  time  discussing  the 
other  miracles,  the  essential  question  is,  Did  Jesus  Christ 
rise  from  the  dead  ?  adding  that  if  He  did,  it  was  easy  enough 
to  believe  the  other  miracles ;  but  if  He  did  not,  the  other  mir- 
acles must  go. 

Are  the  statements  contained  in  the  four  Gospels,  regard- 
ing the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  statements  of  fact,  or  are 
they  fiction,  fables,  myths?  There  are  three  separate  lines  of 
proof  that  the  statements  contained  in  the  four  Gospels,  re- 
garding the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  are  exact  statements 
of  historic  fact. 

I.  THE     EXTERNAL     EVIDENCE     OF     THE     AUTHENTICITY     AND 

TRUTHFULNESS    OF    THE    GOSPEL    NARRATIVES 

This  is  an  altogether  satisfactory  argument.  The  ex- 
ternal proofs  of  the  authenticity  and  truthfulness  of  the 
Gospel  narratives  are  overwhelming,  but  the  argument  is  long 
and  intricate,  and  it  would  take  a  volume  to  discuss  it  satis- 
factorily. The  other  arguments  are  so  completely  sufficient 
and  overwhelming  and  convincing  to  a  candid  mind  that  we 
can  do  without  this,  good  as  it  is  in  its  place. 

II.  THE    INTERNAL     PROOFS    OF    THE    TRUTHFULNESS    OF    TH9 

GOSPEL    RECORDS 

This  argument  is  thoroughly  conclusive,  and  we  shall 
state  it  briefly  in  the  pao;es   which   follow.     We   shall  no| 

?i6 


The   Resurrection   of  Jesus   Christ 

assume  anything  whatever.  We  shall  not  assume  that  the 
four  Gospel  records  are  true  history.  We  shall  not  assume 
that  the  four  Gospels  were  written  by  the  men  whose  names 
they  bear,  though  it  could  be  easily  proven  that  they  were. 
We  shall  not  even  assume  that  they  were  written  in  the  century 
in  which  Jesus  is  alleged  to  have  lived  and  died  and  risen 
again,  nor  in  the  next  century,  nor  in  the  next.  We  will 
assume  absolutely  nothing  whatever.  We  will  start  out 
with  a  fact  which  we  all  know  to  be  a  fact,  namely,  that  we 
have  the  four  Gospels  to-day,  whoever  wrote  them  and  when- 
ever they  were  written.  We  shall  place  these  four  Gospels 
side  by  side  and  see  if  we  can  discern  in  them  the  marks  of 
truth  or  of  fiction. 

I.  The  first  thing  that  strikes  us,  as  we  compare  these 
Gospels  one  with  another,  is  that  they  are  four  separate  and 
independent  accounts.  This  appears  plainly  from  the  apparent 
discrepancies  in  the  four  different  accounts.  These  apparent 
discrepancies  are  marked  and  many.  It  would  have  been  im- 
possible for  these  four  accounts  to  have  been  made  up  in 
collusion  with  one  another,  or  to  have  been  derived  from  one 
another,  and  so  many  and  so  marked  discrepancies  to  be  found 
in  them.  There  is  harmony  between  the  four  accounts,  but 
the  harmony  does  not  lie  upon  the  surface;  it  comes  out 
only  by  protracted  and  thorough  study.  It  is  precisely  such 
a  harmony  as  would  exist  between  accounts  written  or  related 
by  several  different  persons,  each  looking  at  the  events  re- 
corded from  his  own  standpoint.  It  is  precisely  such  a  har- 
mony as  would  not  exist  in  four  accounts  manufactured  in 
collusion  or  derived  one  from  the  other.  In  four  accounts 
manufactured  in  collusion,  whatever  of  harmony  there  might 
be  would  appear  on  the  surface :  whatever  discrepancy  there 
might  be  would  only  come  out  by  minute  and  careful  study. 

317 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  Nezv  Theology 

But  with  the  four  Gospels  the  case  is  just  the  opposite.  The 
harmony  comes  out  by  minute  and  careful  study,  and  the 
apparent  discrepancy  lies  upon  the  surface.  Whether  true  or 
false,  these  four  accounts  are  separate  and  independent  from 
one  another.  The  four  accounts  supplement  one  another,  the 
third  account  sometimes  reconciling  apparent  discrepancies 
between  two. 

These  accounts  must  be  either  a  record  of  facts  that  ac- 
tually occurred,  or  else  fictions.  If  fictions,  they  must  have 
been  fabricated  in  one  of  two  ways.  Either  independently  of 
one  another  or  in  collusion  with  one  another.  They  cannot 
have  been  fabricated  independently  of  one  another;  the  agree- 
ments are  too  marked  and  too  many.  It  is  absolutely  incredible 
that  four  persons,  sitting  down  to  write  an  account  of  what 
never  occurred,  independently  of  one  another,  should  have 
made  their  stories  agree  to  the  extent  that  these  do.  On  the 
other  hand,  they  cannot  have  been  made  up,  as  we  have  al- 
ready seen,  in  collusion  with  one  another;  the  apparent  dis- 
crepancies are  too  numerous  and  too  noticeable.  It  is  proven 
they  were  not  made  up  independently  of  one  another;  it  is 
proven  they  were  not  made  up  in  collusion  with  one  another. 
So  we  are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  they  were  not  made 
up  at  all ;  that  they  are  a  true  relation  of  facts  as  they  actually 
occurred.  We  might  rest  the  argument  here  and  reasonably 
call  the  case  settled,  but  we  will  go  on  still  further. 

2.  The  next  thing  that  we  notice  is  that  each  of  these 
accounts  bears  striking  indications  of  having  been  derived 
from  eye  witnesses. 

The  account  of  an  eye  witness  Is  readily  distinguishable 
from  the  account  of  one  who  is  merely  retailing  what  others 
have  told  him.  Any  one  who  is  accustomed  to  weigh  evidence 
in  court  or  In  historical  study  soon  learns  how  to  distinguish 

218 


The  Resurrection   of  Jesus   Christ 

the  report  of  an  eye  witness  from  mere  hearsay  evidence.  Any 
careful  student  of  the  Gospel  records  of  the  resurrection  will 
readily  detect  many  marks  of  the  eye  witness.  Some  years 
ago,  when  lecturing  at  an  American  University,  a  gentleman 
was  introduced  to  me  as  being  a  skeptic.  I  asked  him :  "What 
line  of  study  are  you  pursuing?"  He  replied  that  he  was  pur- 
suing a  post-graduate  course  in  history,  with  a  view  to  a  pro- 
fessorship in  history.  I  said:  "Then  you  know  that  the  ac- 
count of  an  eye  witness  differs  in  marked  respects  from  the 
account  of  one  who  is  simply  telling  what  he  has  heard  from 
others?"  "Yes,"  he  replied.  I  next  asked:  "Have  you  care- 
fully read  the  four  Gospel  accounts  of  the  resurrection  of 
Christ?"  He  replied:  "I  have."  "Tell  me,  have  you  noticed 
clear  indications  that  they  were  derived  from  eye  w^itnesses?" 
"Yes,"  he  replied;  "I  have  been  greatly  struck  by  this  in 
reading  the  accounts."  Any  one  who  carefully  and  intelli- 
gently reads  them  will  be  struck  w'ith  the  same  fact. 

3.  The  third  thing  that  we  notice  about  these  Gospel 
narratives  is  their  naturalness,  straightforwardness,  artlessness 
and  simplicity.  The  accounts,  it  is  true,  have  to  do  with  the 
supernatural,  but  the  accounts  themselves  are  most  natural. 
There  is  a  remarkable  absence  of  all  attempt  at  coloring  and 
effect.  There  is  nothing  but  the  simple,  straightforward  tell- 
ing of  facts  as  they  actually  occurred.  It  frequently  happens 
when  a  witness  is  on  the  witness  stand,  that  the  story  he  tells 
is  so  artless,  so  straightforward,  so  natural,  there  is  such  an 
entire  absence  of  any  attempt  at  coloring  or  effect  that  his  tes- 
timony bears  weight  independently  of  anything  we  may  know 
of  the  character  or  previous  history  of  the  witness.  As  w-e 
listen  to  his  story  we  say  to  ourselves :  "This  man  is  telling 
the  truth."  The  weight  of  this  kind  of  evidence  is  greatly 
increased  and  reaches  practical  certainty  when  we  have  scv- 

219 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

eral  independent  witnesses  of  this  sort,  all  bearing  testimony 
to  the  same  essential  facts,  but  with  varieties  of  detail,  one 
omitting  what  another  tells,  and  the  third  unconsciously  recon- 
ciling apparent  discrepancies  between  the  two.  This  is  the 
precise  case  with  the  four  Gospel  narratives  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ.  The  Gospel  writers  do  not  seem  to  have  re- 
flected at  all  upon  the  meaning  or  bearing  of  many  of  the 
facts  which  they  relate.  They  simply  tell  right  out  what  they 
saw,  in  all  simplicity  and  straightforwardness,  leaving  the 
philosophizing  to  others.  Dr.  William  Furness,  the  great  Uni- 
tarian scholar  and  critic,  who  certainly  was  not  over-much  dis- 
posed in  favor  of  the  supernatural,  says :  ''Nothing  can  exceed, 
in  artlessness  and  simplicity,  the  four  accounts  of  the  first 
appearance  of  Jesus  after  His  crucifixion.  If  these  qualities 
are  not  discernible  here,  we  must  despair  of  ever  being  able  to 
discern  them  anywhere." 

Suppose  we  should  find  four  accounts  of  the  battle  of 
Monmouth.  Suppose,  furthermore,  that  nothing  decisive  was 
known  as  to  the  authorship  of  these  four  accounts,  but  when 
we  laid  them  side  by  side  we  found  that  they  were  manifestly 
independent  accounts.  We  found,  furthermore,  striking  indi- 
cations that  they  were  from  eye  witnesses.  We  found  them 
all  marked  by  that  artlessness,  straightforwardness  and  sim- 
plicity that  always  carries  conviction;  we  found  that,  while 
apparently  disagreeing  in  minor  details,  they  agreed  substan- 
tially in  their  account  of  the  battle — even  though  we  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  authorship  or  date  of  these  accounts,  would 
we  not,  in  the  absence  of  any  other  accounts,  say :  "Here  is  a 
true  account  of  the  battle  of  Monmouth"?  Now  this  is  ex- 
actly the  case  with  the  four  Gospel  narratives.  Manifestly 
separate  and  independent  from  one  another,  bearing  the  clear 
marks  of  having  been  derived  from  eye  witnesses,  character- 

22Q 


The  Resurrection   of  Jesus   Christ 

ized  by  an  unparalleled  artlessness,  simplicity  and  straight- 
forwardness, apparently  disagreeing  in  minor  details,  but  in 
perfect  agreement  as  to  the  great  central  facts  related.  If 
we  are  fair  and  honest,  if  we  follow  the  canons  of  evidence 
followed  in  court,  if  we  follow  any  sound  and  sane  law  of 
literary  and  historical  criticism,  are  we  not  logically  driven  to 
say:  "Here  is  a  true  account  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus"? 
Here,  again,  we  might  rest  our  case  and  call  the  Resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  from  the  Dead  proven,  but  we  go  on  still  further. 

4.  The  next  thing  we  notice  is  the  unintentional  evi- 
dence of  words,  phrases,  and  accidental  details. 

It  oftentimes  happens  that  when  a  witness  is  on  the  stand, 
the  unintentional  evidence  that  he  bears  by  words  and  phrases, 
which  he  uses,  and  by  accidental  details,  which  he  introduces, 
is  more  convincing  than  his  direct  testimony,  because  it  is  not 
the  testimony  of  the  witness,  but  the  testimony  of  the  truth 
to  itself.    The  Gospel  accounts  abound  in  evidence  of  this  sort. 

Take,  as  the  first  instance,  the  fact  that  in  all  the  Gospel 
records  of  the  resurrection,  we  are  given  to  understand  that 
Jesus  was  not  at  first  recognized  by  His  disciples  when  He 
appeared  to  them  after  His  resurrection  {e.  g.  Luke  24:16; 
John  21:4.)  We  are  not  told  v/hy  this  was  so,  but  if  we  will 
think  a  while  over  it,  we  will  soon  discover  why  it  was  so. 
But  the  Gospel  narratives  simply  record  the  fact  without 
attempting  to  explain  it.  If  the  stories  were  fictitious,  they 
certainly  would  never  have  been  made  up  in  this  way,  for  the 
writer  would  have  seen  at  once  the  objection  that  would  arise 
in  the  minds  of  those  who  did  not  wish  to  believe  in  His  resur- 
rection, that  is,  that  it  was  not  really  Jesus  whom  the  disciples 
saw.  Why,  then,  is  the  story  told  in  this  way?  For  the  self- 
evident  reason  that  the  evangelists  were  not  making  up  a 
story  for  effect,  but  simply  recording  events  precisely  as  they 

221 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

occurred.  This  is  the  way  in  which  it  occurred,  therefore  this 
is  the  way  in  which  they  told  it.  It  is  not  a  fabrication  of 
imaginary  incidents,  but  an  exact  record  of  facts  carefully  ob- 
served and  accurately  recorded.  ' 

Take  a  second  instance :  In  all  the  Gospel  records  of  the 
appearances  of  Jesus  after  His  resurrection,  there  is  not  a 
single  recorded  appearance  to  an  enemy  or  opponent  of  Christ. 
All  His  appearances  were  to  those  who  were  already  believ- 
ers. Why  this  was  so  we  can  easily  see  by  a  little  thought; 
but  nowhere  in  the  Gospels  are  we  told  why  it  was  so.  If  the 
stories  had  been  fabricated,  they  certainly  would  never  have 
been  made  up  in  this  way.  If  the  Gospels  were,  as  some 
would  have  us  believe,  fabrications  constructed  one  hundred, 
two  hundred  or  three  hundred  years  after  the  alleged  events 
recorded,  when  all  the  actors  were  dead  and  gone  and  no  one 
could  gainsay  any  lies  told,  Jesus  would  have  been  represented 
as  appearing  to  Caiaphas  and  Annas  and  Pilate  and  Herod, 
and  confounding  them  by  His  reappearance  from  the  dead. 
But  there  is  no  suggestion  even  of  anything  of  this  kind  in  the 
Gospel  stories.  Every  appearance  is  to  one  who  is  already 
a  believer.  Why  is  this  so?  For  the  self-evident  reason  that 
this  was  the  way  that  things  occurred,  and  the  Gospel  narra- 
tives are  not  concerned  with  producing  a  story  for  effect,  but 
simply  with  recording  events  precisely  as  they  occurred  and  as 
they  were  observed. 

We  find  still  another  instance  in  the  fact  that  the  re- 
corded appearances  of  Jesus  after  His  resurrection  were  only 
occasional.  He  would  appear  in  the  midst  of  His  disciples  and 
disappear  and  not  be  seen  again,  perhaps,  for  several  days. 
Why  this  was  so,  we  can  easily  think  out  for  ourselves :  He 
was  evidently  seeking  to  wean  His  disciples  from  their  old- 
time  communion  with  Him  in  the  body  and  to  prepare  them 

^2^ 


The  Resurrection   of  Jesus   Christ 

for  the  communion  with  Himself  in  the  Spirit  that  was  to 
follow  in  the  days  that  were  to  come.  We  are  not,  however, 
told  this  in  the  Gospel  narratives.  We  are  left  to  discover 
it  for  ourselves,  and  this  is  all  the  more  significant  for  that 
reason.  It  is  doubtful  if  the  disciples  themselves  realized  the 
meaning  of  the  facts.  If  they  had  been  making  up  the  story 
to  produce  effect,  they  would  have  represented  Jesus  as  being 
with  them  constantly,  as  living  with  them,  eating  and  drinking 
with  them  day  after  day.  Why,  then,  is  the  story  told  as  re- 
corded in  the  four  Gospels  ?  Because  this  is  the  way  in  which 
it  had  all  occurred.  The  Gospel  writers  are  simply  con- 
cerned with  giving  the  exact  representation  of  the  facts  as 
witnessed  by  themselves  and  others. 

We  find  another  very  striking  instance  in  what  is  re- 
corded concerning  the  words  of  Jesus  to  Mary  at  their  first 
meeting  (John  20:17).  Jesus  is  recorded  as  saying  to  Mary: 
'Touch  Me  not,  for  I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  My  Father." 
We  are  not  told  why  Jesus  said  this  to  Mary.  We  are  left 
to  discover  the  reason  for  it  if  we  can,  and  the  commentators 
have  had  a  great  deal  of  trouble  in  discovering  it.  Their  ex- 
planations vary  widely  one  from  another.  I  have  a  reason  of 
my  own,  which  I  have  never  seen  in  any  commentary,  but 
which,  I  am  persuaded,  is  the  true  reason ;  but  it  would  prob- 
ably be  difficult  to  persuade  others  that  it  was  the  true  reason. 
Why,  then,  is  this  little  utterance  of  Jesus  put  in  the  Gospel 
record  without  a  word  of  explanation,  and  which  it  has  taken 
eighteen  centuries  to  explain,  and  which  is  not  altogether  sat- 
isfactorily explained  yet?  Certainly  a  writer  making  up  a 
story  would  not  put  in  a  little  detail  like  that  without  appar- 
ent meaning  and  without  an  attempt  at  an  explanation  of  it. 
Stories  that  are  made  up  are  made  up  for  a  purpose;  details 
that  are  inserted  are  inserted  for  a  purpose — a  purpose  more 

223 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

or  lees  evident — but  eighteen  centuries  of  study  have  not 
been  able  to  find  out  the  purpose  v^hy  this  was  inserted.  Why, 
then,  do  we  find  it  here?  Because  this  is  exactly  what  hap- 
pened. This  is  what  Jesus  said;  this  is  what  Mary  heard 
Jesus  say ;  this  is  what  Mary  told,  and,  therefore,  this  is  what 
John  recorded.  We  cannot  have  a  fiction  here,  but  an  ac- 
curate record  of  words  spoken  by  Jesus  after  His  resurrec- 
tion. 

We  find  still  another  instance  in  John  20  :4-6.  "So  they 
ran  both  together :  and  the  other  disciple  did  outrun  Peter,  and 
came  first  to  the  sepulchre.  And  he,  stooping  down  and  look- 
ing in,  saw  the  linen  clothes  lying;  yet  went  he  not  in.  Then 
cometh  Simon  Peter  following  him,  and  went  into  the  sepul- 
chre, and  seeth  the  linen  clothes  lie."  This  is  all  in  striking 
keeping  with  what  we  know  of  the  men  from  other  sources. 
Mary,  returning  hurriedly  from  the  tomb,  bursts  in  upon  the 
two  disciples  and  cries :  ''They  have  taken  away  the  Lord  out 
of  the  sepulchre,  and  we  know  not  where  they  have  laid  Him." 
John  and  Peter  sprang  to  their  feet  and  ran  at  the  top  of 
their  speed  to  the  tomb.  John,  the  younger  of  the  two  disciples 
(it  is  all  the  more  striking  that  the  narrative  does  not  tell 
us  here  that  he  was  the  younger  of  the  two  disciples),  was 
fleeter  of  foot,  and  outran  Peter  and  reached  the  tomb  first, 
but,  man  of  retiring  and  reverent  disposition  that  he  was 
(we  are  not  told  this  here,  but  we  know  it  from  a  study  of  his 
personality  as  revealed  elsewhere),  he  did  not  enter  the  tomb 
but  simply  stooped  down  and  looked  in.  Impetuous,  but  older, 
Peter  comes  lumbering  on  behind  as  fast  as  he  can ;  but  when 
once  he  reaches  the  tomb,  he  never  waits  a  moment  outside 
but  plunges  headlong  in.  Is  this  made  up,  or  is  it  Hfe?  He 
was  indeed  a  literary  artist  of  consummate  ability,  who  had 
the  skill  to  make  this  up,  if  it  did  not  occur  just  so.    There  is, 

224 


The  Resurrection   of  Jesus   Christ 

incidentally  a  touch  of  local  coloring  in  the  report.  When 
one  visits  today  the  tomb  which  scholars  now  accept  as  the 
real  burial  place  of  Jesus,  he  will  find  himself  unconsciously 
obliged  to  stoop  down  to  look  in. 

Still  another  instance  is  found  in  John  21:7:  "Therefore 
that  disciple,  whom  Jesus  loved,  saith  to  Peter,  It  is  the 
Lord.  Now  when  Simon  Peter  heard  that  it  was  the  Lord, 
he  girt  his  fisher's  coat  unto  him  (for  he  was  naked)  and 
did  cast  himself  into  the  sea."  Here,  again,  we  have  the 
unmistakable  marks  of  truth  and  life.  The  Apostles  had  gone, 
at  Jesus'  commandment,  into  Galilee  to  meet  Him  there,  but 
Jesus  does  not  at  once  appear.  Simon  Peter,  with  the  fisher's 
passion  still  stirring  in  his  bosom,  says :  *T  go  a-fishing."  The 
others  replied:  "We  also  go  with  thee."  They  fished  all  night 
and  with  characteristic  fishermen's  luck,  caught  nothing.  In 
the  early  dawn  Jesus  stands  upon  the  shore,  but  the  disciples 
did  not  recognize  Him  in  the  dim  light.  Jesus  calls  to  them : 
"Children,  have  ye  any  meat  ?''  And  they  answer :  "No."  He 
bids  them  cast  the  net  on  the  right  side  of  the  ship  and  they 
would  find.  W^hen  the  cast  was  made,  they  were  not  able  to 
draw  it  for  the  multitude  of  fishes.  In  an  instant,  John,  the 
man  of  quick  spiritual  perception,  says :  "It  is  the  Lord."  No 
sooner  does  Peter,  the  rnan  of  impulsive  action,  hear  it  than 
he  grasps  his  fisher's  coat,  casts  it  about  his  naked  form  and 
throws  himself  overboard  and  strikes  out  for  shore  to  reach 
his  Lord.  Is  this  made  up,  or  is  it  life?  This  is  not  fiction. 
If  some  unknown  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  made  this  up,  he 
is  the  master  literary  artist  of  the  ages,  and  we  should  take 
down  every  other  name  from  our  literary  pantheon  and  place 
his  above  them  all 

We  find  a  still  more  touching  instance  in  John  20:15: 
"Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Woman,  why  weepest  thou?     Whom 

^25 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

seekest  thou?  She,  supposing  Him  to  be  the  gardener,  saitH 
unto  Him,  "Sir,  if  thou  hast  borne  Him  hence,  tell  me  where 
Thou  hast  laid  Him,  and  I  will  take  Him  away."  Here  is 
surely  a  touch  that  surpasses  the  art  of  any  man  of  that 
day  or  any  other  day.  Mary  had  gone  into  the  city  and  noti- 
fied John  and  Peter  that  she  had  found  the  sepulchre  empty. 
They  start  on  a  run  for  the  sepulchre.  As  IMary  has  already 
made  the  journey  twice,  they  easily  far  outstrip  her,  but  with 
heavy  heart  and  slow  and  weary  feet,  she  makes  her  way  back 
to  the  tomb.  Peter  and  John  have  been  long  gone  when  she 
reaches  it,  broken-hearted,  thinking  that  not  only  has  her  be- 
loved Lord  been  slain,  but  that  His  tomb  has  been  desecrated. 
She  stands  without,  weeping.  There  are  two  angels  sitting 
in  the  tomb,  one  at  the  head  and  the  other  at  the  feet  where 
the  body  of  Jesus  had  lain.  But  the  grief-stricken  woman  has 
no  eye  for  angels.  Tliey  say  unto  her :  '*\Voman,  why  weepest 
thou?"  She  replies:  "Because  they  have  taken  away  my 
Lord,  and  I  know  not  where  they  have  laid  Him."  A  rustle 
in  the  leaves  at  her  back  and  she  turns  around  to  see  who 
is  coming.  She  sees  Jesus  standing  there,  but  blinded  by  tears 
and  despair  she  does  not  recognize  her  Lord.  Jesus  also  says 
to  her:  "Why  weepest  thou?  Whom  seekest  thou?"  She, 
supposing  it  to  be  the  gardener  who  is  talking  to  her  says : 
"Sir,  if  Thou  hast  borne  Plim  hence,  tell  me  where  Thou 
hast  laid  Him  and  I  will  take  Him  away."  Now,  remember, 
who  it  is  that  makes  the  offer,  and  whit  she  offers  to  do — 
a  weak  woman  offers  to  carry  a  full-grown  man  away.  Of 
course,  she  could  not  do  it,  but  how  true  to  a  woman's  love 
that  always  forgets  its  weakness  and  never  stops  at  impossi- 
bilities. There  is  something  to  be  done  and  she  says :  "I  v/ill 
do  it!     Tell  me  where  Thou  hast  laid  Him,  and  I  will  take 

226 


The  Resurrection   of  Jesus   Christ 

Him  away."    Is  this  made  up?    Never!    This  is  Hfe;  this  is 
reality;  this  is  truth. 

We  find  another  instance  in  Mark  16:7:  "But  go  your 
way,  tell  His  disciples  and  Peter  that  He  goeth  before  you 
into  Galilee :  there  shall  ye  see  Him,  as  He  said  unto  you."  , 
What  I  would  have  you  notice  here  arc  the  two  words  "and 
Peter."  Why  ''and  Peter"' "^  Was  not  Peter  one  of  the  dis- 
ciples? Surely  he  was,  the  very  head  of  the  Apostolic  com- 
pany. Why,  then,  "and  Peter"?  No  explanation  is  given 
in  the  text,  but  reflection  shows  it  was  the  utterance  of  love 
toward  the  despondent,  despairing  disciple,  who  had  thrice  de- 
nied his  Lord.  If  the  message  had  been  simply  to  "the  dis- 
ciples" Peter  would  have  said :  "Yes,  I  was  once  a  disciple,  but 
I  can  no  longer  be  counted  such.  I  thrice  denied  my  Lord 
on  that  awful  night  with  oaths  and  cursings.  It  does  not 
mean  me."  But  our  tender,  compassionate  Lord,  through  His 
angelic  messenger,  sends  the  message :  "Go,  tell  His  disciples, 
and  whoever  you  tell,  be  sure  you  tell  poor,  weak,  faltering, 
backslidden,  broken-hearted  Peter."  Is  this  made  up,  or  is  this 
a  real  picture  of  our  Lord?  I  pity  the  man  who  is  so  dull 
that  he  can  imagine  this  is  fiction.  Incidentally,  let  it  be  noted 
that  this  is  recorded  only  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  which,  as  is 
well  known,  is  Peter's  Gospel.  As  Peter  dictated  to  Mark  one 
day  w^hat  he  should  record,  with  tearful  eyes  and  grateful  heart 
he  would  turn  to  him  and  say:  "Mark,  be  sure  you  put  that 
in,  'Tell  His  disciples  and  Peter,"* 

Take,  still,  another  instance  in  John  20:27-29:  "Then 
saith  He  to  Thomas,  Reach  hither  thy  finger,  and  behold  My 
hands ;  and  reach  hither  thy  hand,  and  thrust  it  into  i\Iy  side ; 
and  be  not  faithless  but  believing.  And  Thomas  answered 
and  said  unto  Him,  My  Lord  and  my  God.     Jesus  said  unto 

227 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theology 

him,  Thomas,  because  thou  hast  seen  Me,  thou  hast  beUeved : 
blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  beUeved." 
Note  here  two  things :  The  action  of  Thomas  and  the  rebuke 
of  Jesus.  Each  is  too  characteristic  to  be  attributed  to  the  art 
of  some  master  of  fiction.  Thomas  had  not  been  with  the 
disciples  at  the  first  appearance  of  our  Lord.  A  week  had 
passed  by.  Another  Lord's  Day  had  come.  This  time  Thomas 
makes  sure  of  being  present;  if  the  Lord  is  to  appear,  he  will 
be  there.  If  he  had  been  like  some  of  our  modem  doubters, 
he  would  have  taken  pains  to  be  away;  but  doubter  though 
he  wa?,  he  was  an  honest  doubter,  and  wanted  to  know.  Sud- 
denly Jesus  stands  in  the  midst.  He  says  to  Thomas :  "Reach 
hither  thy  finger,  and  behold  My  hands,  and  reach  hither  thy 
hand,  and  thrust  it  into  ^ly  side :  and  be  not  faithless  but  be- 
lieving." At  last  Thomas's  eyes  are  opened.  His  faith  long 
dammed  back  bursts  every  barrier  and.  sweeping  outward, 
carries  Thomas  to  a  higher  height  than  r.ny  other  disciple  had 
as  yet  reached — exultingly  and  adoringly,  he  cries,  as  he  looks 
up  into  the  face  of  Jesus:  ''My  Lord  and  my  God!"  Then 
Jesus,  tenderly,  but  oh,  how  searchingly,  rebukes  him. 
"Thomas,"  He  says,  "because  thou  hast  seen  Me,  thou  hast 
believed.  Blessed  are  they  [who  are  so  eager  to  find  and  so 
quick  to  see,  and  so  ready  to  accept  the  truth  that  they  do 
not  w^ait  for  actual  visible  demonstration,  but  are  ready  to 
take  truth  on  sufficient  testimony]  that  have  not  seen  and 
yet  have  believed."  Is  this  made  up.  or  is  this  life?  Is  it  a  rec- 
ord of  facts  as  they  occurred  or  a  fictitious  production  of  some 
master  artist? 

Take  still  another  instance.  In  John  21:15-17  we  read: 
"So  when  they  had  dined,  Jesus  saith  to  Simon  Peter,  Simon, 
son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  Me  more  than  these?  He  saith 
unto  Him.  Yea,  Lord ;  Thou  knowest  that  I  Jove  Thee.     He 

228 


The   Rcsiirrcclion   of  Jesus   Christ 

salth  unto  him,  Feed  My  lambs.  He  saith  unto  him  again 
the  second  time,  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  Me?  He 
saith  unto  Him,  Yea,  Lord,  Thou  knowcst  that  I  love  Thee. 
He  saith  unto  him.  Feed  My  sheep.  He  saith  unto  him  the 
third  time,  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  Me?  Peter  was 
grieved  because  He  said  unto  him  the  third  time,  Lovest  thou 
Me?  And  he  said  unto  Him,  'Lord,  Thou  knowest  all  things; 
Thou  knowest  that  I  love  Thee.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Feed 
My  sheep."  Note  especially  here  the  words :  'Teter  was 
grieved  because  He  said  unto  him  the  third  time,  Lovest  thou 
Me."  Why  did  Jesus  ask  Peter  three  times  "Lovest  thou 
Me?"  And  why  was  Peter  grieved  because  Jesus  did  ask 
him  three  times  ?  We  are  not  told  in  the  text,  but  if  we  read  it 
in  the  light  of  Peter's  thrice  repeated  denial  of  his  Lord,  we 
will  understand  it.  As  Peter  had  denied  his  Lord  thrice,  Jesus 
three  times  gave  Peter  an  opportunity  to  reassert  his  love. 
But  this,  tender  as  it  was,  brings  back  to  Peter  that  awful 
night  when,  in  the  courtyard  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  he  thrice 
denied  his  Lord,  and  "Peter  was  grieved  because  He  said 
unto  him  the  third  time,  Lovest  thou  Me."  Is  this  made  up  ? 
Did  the  writer  make  it  up  with  this  fact  in  view?  If  he 
did,  he  surely  would  have  mentioned  it.  It  cannot  have  been 
made  up.  It  is  not  fiction.  It  is  simply  reporting  what  actually 
occurred.  The  accurate  truthfulness  of  the  record  comes  out 
even  more  strikingly  in  the  Greek  than  in  the  English  ver- 
sion. Two  different  words  are  used  for  "love."  Jesus,  in 
asking  Peter  "Lovest  thou  Me"  uses  a  strong  word,  denoting 
the  higher  form  of  love.  Peter,  replying:  "Lord,  Thou  know- 
est that  I  love  thee,"  uses  a  weaker  word,  but  one  denoting 
a  more  tender  form  of  love.  Jesus,  the  second  time  uses  the 
stronger  word,  and  the  second  time,  in  his  reply,  Peter  uses 
the  weaker  word.     In  His  third  question,  Jesus  comes  down 

229 


The  Higher  Criticism  drfd  The  Kezv  Theology 

to  Peter's  level  and  uses  the  weaker  word  that  Peter  had  used 
from  the  beginning.  Then  Peter  replies :  "Lord,  Thou  know- 
est  all  things,  Thou  knowest  that  I  love  Thee,"  using  the  same 
weaker  word.  This  cannot  be  fiction.  It  is  accurately  re- 
ported fact. 

Take  still  another  instance.  In  John  20  :i6  we  read :  "Jesus 
saith  unto  her,  IVIary.  She  turned  herself,  and  saith  unto  Him, 
Rabboni ;  which  is  to  say,  Master."  What  a  delicate  touch  of 
nature  we  have  here.  Mary  is  standing  outside  the  tomb 
overcome  with  grief.  She  has  not  recognized  her  Lord, 
though  He  has  spoken  to  her.  She  has  mistaken  Him  for 
the  gardener.  She  has  said,  "Sir,  if  Thou  hast  borne  Him 
hence,  tell  me  where  Thou  hast  laid  Him,  and  I  will  take  Him 
away."  Then  Jesus  utters  just  one  word,  He  says,  "Mary." 
As  that  name  came  trembling  on  the  morning  air,  uttered  with 
the  old  familiar  tone,  spoken  as  no  one  else  had  ever  spoken  it 
but  He,  in  an  instant,  her  eyes  were  opened.  She  falls  at  His 
feet  and  tries  to  clasp  them,  and  looks  up  into  His  face,  and 
cries:  "Rabboni,  My  IMaster."  Is  this  made  up?  Impossible! 
This  is  life !  This  is  Jesus,  and  this  is  the  woman  who  loved 
Him.  No  unknown  author  of  the  second,  third  or  fourth 
century  could  have  produced  such  a  masterpiece  as  this.  We 
stand  here,  unquestionably  face  to  face  with  reality,  with  life, 
wuth  Jesus  and  Mary  as  they  actually  were. 

One  more  important  illustration.  In  John  20:7  we  read: 
"And  the  napkin,  that  was  about  his  head,  not  lying  with  the 
linen  clothes,  but  wrapped  together  in  a  place  by  itself."  How 
strange  that  such  a  little  detail  as  this  should  be  added  to  the 
story  with  absolutely  no  attempt  at  explaining  why.  But  how 
deeply  significant  this  little  unexplained  detail  is.  Recall  the 
circumstances.  Jesus  is  dead.  For  three  days  and  three 
nights,   from  Wednesday  evening   at   sunset   until   Saturday 

230 


The  Rssurrcction   of  Jesus   Christ 

evening  at  sunset  (the  evidence  for  Christ  being  crucified  on 
Wednesday  and  not  on  Friday  seems  to  be  overwhelming,  but 
it  does  not  matter  for  the  purpose  of  our  present  argument), 
His  body  is  laying  cold  and  silent  in  the  sepulchre,  as  truly 
dead  as  any  body  was  ever  dead;  but  at  last  the  appointed 
hour  has  come,  the  breath  of  God  sweeps  through  the  sleep- 
ing and  silent  clay,  and  in  that  supreme  moment  of  His  own 
earthly  life,  that  supreme  moment  of  human  history  when 
Jesus  rises  triumphant  over  death  and  grave  and  Satan,  there 
is  no  excitement  rpon  His  part,  but  that  same  majestic 
self-composure  and  serenity  that  marked  His  whole  career, 
that  same  Divine  calm  that  He  displayed  upon  storm- tossed 
Galilee  when  His  affrighted  disciples  shook  Him  from  His 
slumbers,  and  said:  ''Lord,  carest  Thou  not  that  we  perish?" 
and  He  arose  serenely  on  the  deck  of  the  tossing  vessel  and 
said  to  the  wild,  tempestuous  waves  and  winds:  "Be  still/' 
and  there  was  a  great  calm.  So  now,  again,  in  this  sublime, 
this  awful  moment,  He  does  not  excitedly  tear  the  napkin  from 
His  face  and  fling  it  aside,  but  absolutely  without  human  haste 
or  flurry,  or  disorder,  He  unties  it  calmly  from  His  head,  rolls 
it  up  and  lays  it  avv-ay  in  an  orderly  manner  in  a  place  by 
itself.  Was  that  mrde  up?  Never!  We  do  not  behold  here 
an  exquisite  masterpiece  of  the  romancer's  art — we  read  here 
the  simple  narrative  of  a  matchless  detail  in  a  unique  life 
that  was  actually  lived  here  upon  earth,  a  life  so  beautiful 
that  one  cannot  read  it  with  an  honest  and  open  mind  with- 
out feeling  the  tears  coming  into  his  eyes. 

But  some  one  will  say,  all  these  are  little  things.  True, 
and  it  is  from  that  ^  cry  fact  that  they  gain  much  of  their  sig- 
nificance. It  is  jus:  in  such  little  things  that  fiction  would 
disclose  itself.  Fie  ion  displays  its  difiference  from  fact  in 
the  minute;  in  the  great  outstanding  outlines  you  can  make 

231 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theology 

fiction  look  like  truth,  but  when  you  come  to  examine  it  mi- 
nutely and  microscopically,  you  will  soon  detect  that  it  is  not 
reality,  but  fabrication.  But  the  more  microscopically  we  ex- 
amine the  Gospel  narratives,  the  more  we  become  impressed 
with  their  truthfulness.  There  is  an  artlessness  and  natural- 
ness and  self-evident  truthfulness  in  the  narratives,  down  to 
the  minutest  detail,  that  surpasses  all  the  possibilities  of  art. 

III.  The  third  line  of  proof  that  the  statements  con- 
tained in  the  four  Gospels  regarding  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ  are  exact  statements  of  historic  fact,  is  the  Circum- 
stantial Evidence  for  the  Resurrection  of  Christ.  There 
are  certain  proven  and  admitted  facts  that  demand  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  to  account  for  them. 

I.  Beyond  a  question,  the  foundation  truth  preached 
In  the  early  years  of  the  church's  history  was  the  resurrec- 
tion. This  was  the  one  doctrine  upon  which  the  apostles  were 
ever  ringing  the  changes.  Whether  Jesus  did  actually  rise 
from  the  dead  or  not,  it  is  certain  that  the  one  thing  that  the 
apostles  constantly  proclaimed  was  that  He  had  risen.  Why 
should  the  apostles  use  this  as  the  very  corner  stone  of  their 
creed  if  not  well  attested  and  firmly  believed.  But  this  is  not 
all:  they  laid  down  their  lives  for  this  doctrine.  Men  never 
lay  down  their  lives  for  a  doctrine  which  they  do  not  firmly 
believe.  They  stated  that  they  had  seen  Jesus  after  His  resur- 
rection, and  rather  than  give  up  their  statement,  they  laid 
down  their  lives  for  it.  Of  course,  men  may  die  for  error, 
and  often  have,  but  it  was  for  error  that  they  firmly  believed. 
In  this  case  they  would  have  known  whether  they  had  seen 
Jesus  or  not,  and  they  would  not  merely  have  been  dying  f«r 
error  but  dying  for  a  statement  which  they  knew  to  be  false. 
This  is  not  only  incredible  but  impossible.  Furthermore,  if 
the  apostles  really  firmly  believed,  as  is  admitted,  that  Jesus 

232 


The  Rcsurrcctiun   of   Jesus   Christ 

rose  from  the  dead,  they  had  some  facts  upon  which  they 
founded  their  belief.  These  would  have  been  the  facts  that 
they  would  have  related  in  recounting  the  story.  They  cer- 
tainly would  not  have  made  up  a  story  out  of  imaginary  inci- 
dents when  they  had  real  facts  upon  which  they  founded  their 
belief.  But  if  the  facts  were,  as  recounted  in  the  Gospels, 
there  is  no  possible  escaping  the  conclusion  that  Jesus  actually 
arose.  Still  further,  if  Jesus  had  not  arisen  there  would  have 
been  evidence  that  He  had  not.  His  enemies  would  have 
sought  and  found  this  evidence ;  but  the  apostles  went  up  and 
down  the  very  city  where  He  had  been  crucified  and  pro- 
claimed, right  to  the  faces  of  His  slayers,  that  He  had  been 
raised  and  no  one  could  produce  evidence  to  the  contrary.  The 
very  best  they  could  do  was  to  say  the  guards  went  to  sleep 
and  the  disciples  stole  the  body  while  the  guards  slept.  Men 
who  bear  evidence  of  what  happens  while  they  are  asleep  are 
not  usually  regarded  as  credible  witnesses.  Further  still, 
if  the  apostles  had  stolen  the  body  they  would  have  known 
it  themselves  and  would  not  have  been  ready  to  die  for  what 
they  knew  to  be  a  fraud. 

2.  Another  known  fact  is  the  change  in  the  day  of  rest. 
The  early  church  came  from  among  the  Jews.  From  time 
immemorial  the  Jews  had  celebrated  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week  as  their  day  of  rest  and  worship,  but  we  find  the  early 
Christians,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  also  in  early  Chris- 
tian writings,  assembling  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  Noth- 
ing is  more  difficult  of  accomplishment  than  the  change  in  a 
holy  day  that  has  been  celebrated  for  centuries  and  is  one 
of  the  most  cherished  customs  of  the  people.  What  is  espe- 
cially significant  about  the  change  is  that  it  was  changed  by  no 
express  decree,  but  by  general  consent.  Something  tremen- 
dous must  have  occurred  that  led  to  this  change.    The  apostles 

233 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

asserted  that  what  had  occurred  on  that  day  was  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  from  the  dead,  and  that  is  the  most  rational 
explanation.  In  fact,  it  is  the  only  reasonable  explanation 
of  the  change. 

3.  But  the  most  significant  fact  of  all  is  the  change  in 
the  disciples  themselves,  the  moral  transformation.  At  the 
time  of  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  we  find  the  whole  apostolic 
company  filled  with  blank  and  utter  despair.  We  see  Peter, 
the  leader  of  the  apostolic  company,  denying  his  Lord  three 
times  with  oaths  and  cursings,  but  a  few  days  later  we  see  this 
same  man  filled  with  a  courage  that  nothing  could  shake. 
We  see  him  standing  before  the  council  that  had  condemned 
Jesus  to  death  and  saying  to  them:  "Be  it  known  unto  you 
all,  and  to  all  the  people  of  Israel,  that  by  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Nazareth,  Whom  ye  crucified.  Whom  God  raised 
from  the  dead,  even  by  Him  doth  this  Man  stand  before  you 
whole."  (Acts  4:10.)  A  little  further  Oxi,  when  commanded 
by  the  council  not  to  speak  at  all  nor  teach  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  we  hear  Peter  and  John  answering:  "Whether  it  be 
right  in  the  sight  of  God  to  hearken  unto  you  more  than 
unto  God,  judge  ye.  For  we  cannot  but  speak  the  things 
which  we  have  seen  and  heard."  (Acts  4:19,  20.)  A  little 
later  still,  after  arrest  and  imprisonment,  in  peril  of  death, 
when  sternly  arraigned  by  the  council,  we  hear  Peter  and 
the  apostles  answering  their  demand  that  they  should  be  silent 
regarding  Jesus,  with  the  words :  "We  ought  to  obey  God 
rather  than  man.  The  God  of  our  fathers  raised  up  Jesus 
Whom  ye  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree.  Him  hath  God  exalted 
with  his  right  hand  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  for  to  give 
repentance  to  Israel,  and  forgiveness  of  sins.  And  we  are  His 
witnesses  of  these  things."  (Acts  5  :29-32.)  Something  tre- 
mendous must  have  happened  to  account  for  such  a  radical  and 

234 


The  Resurrection   of  Jesus   CHrlsi 

astounding  moral  transiormatioH  as  this.  Nothing  short  of 
the  fact  of  the  resurrection  and  of  their  having  seen  the  risen 
Lord  will  explain  it. 

These  unquestionable  facts  are  so  impressive  and  so  con- 
clusive that  even  infidel  and  Jewish  scholars  now  admit  that 
the  apostles  believed  that  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead.  Even 
Ferdinand  Baur,  father  of  the  Tiibigen  School,  admitted  this. 
Even  David  Strauss,  who  wrote  the  most  masterly  "Life  of 
Jesus"  from  the  rationalistic  standpoint  that  was  ever  writ- 
ten, said:  "Only  this  much  need  be  acknowledged  that  the 
apostles  firmly  believed  that  Jesus  had  arisen."  Strauss  evi- 
dently did  not  wish  to  admit  any  more  than  he  had  to,  but 
he  felt  compelled  to  admit  this  much.  Schenkel  went  even  fur- 
ther and  said :  "It  is  an  indisputable  fact  that  in  the  early  morn- 
ing of  the  first  day  of  the  week  following  the  crucifixion,  the 
grave  of  Jesus  was  found  empty.  It  is  a  second  fact  that  the 
disciples  and  other  members  of  the  apostolic  communion 
were  convinced  that  Jesus  was  seen  after  the  crucifixion." 
These  admissions  are  fatal  to  the  rationalists  who  make  them. 
The  question  at  once  arises :  "Whence  these  convictions  and 
belief?"  Renan  attempted  an  answer  by  saying  that  "the  pas- 
sion of  a  hallucinated  woman  (Mary)  gives  to  the  world  a 
resurrected  God."  (Kenan's  "Life  of  Jesus,"  page  357.)  By 
this  Renan  means  that  Mary  was  in  love  with  Jesus;  that 
after  His  crucifixion,  brooding  over  it,  in  the  passion  of  her 
love,  she  dreamed  herself  into  a  condition  where  she  had  a  hal- 
lucination that  she  had  seen  Jesus  risen  from  the  dead.  She 
reported  her  dream  as  a  fact,  and  thus  the  passion  of  a  hal- 
lucinated woman  gave  to  the  world  a  resurrected  God.  But 
the  reply  to  all  this  is  self-evident,  viz.,  the  passion  of  a  hal- 
lucinated woman  was  not  competent  to  this  task.  Remember  the 
make-up  of  the  apostolic  company;  in  the  apostolic  company 

235 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

were  a  Matthew  and  a  Thomas  to  be  convinced,  outside  was  a 
Saul  of  Tarsus  to  be  converted.  The  passion  of  a  halluci- 
nated woman  will  not  convince  a  stubborn  unbeliever  like 
Thomas,  nor  a  Jewish  tax-gatherer  like  Matthew.  Whoever 
heard  of  a  tax-gatherer,  and,  most  of  all,  of  a  Jewish  tax- 
gatherer,  who  could  be  imposed  upon  by  the  passion  of  a 
'hallucinated  woman?  Neither  will  the  passion  of  a  halluci- 
nated woman  convince  a  fierce  and  conscientious  enemy  like 
Saul  of  Tarsus.  We  must  look  for  some  saner  explanation 
than  this.  Strauss  tried  to  account  for  it  by  inquiring  whether 
the  appearances  might  not  have  been  visionary.  Strauss  has 
had,  and  still  has,  many  followers  in  this  theory.  But  to  this 
we  reply,  first  of  all,  there  was  no  subjective  starting  point 
for  such  visions.  The  apostles,  so  far  from  expecting  to  see 
the  Lord,  would  scarcely  believe  their  own  eyes  when  they 
did  see  Him.  Furthermore,  whoever  heard  of  eleven  men 
having  the  same  vision  at  the  same  time,  to  say  nothing  of 
five  hundred  men  (I  Cor.  15:6)  having  the  same  vision  at  the 
same  time.  Strauss  demands  of  us  that  we  give  up  one  rea- 
sonable miracle  and  substitute  five  hundred  impossible  miracles 
in  its  place.    Nothing  can  surpass  the  credulity  of  unbelief. 

The  third  attempt  at  an  explanation  is  that  Jesus  was  not 
really  dead  when  they  took  Him  from  the  cross,  that  His 
friends  worked  over  Him  and  brought  Him  back  to  life,  and 
what  was  supposed  to  be  the  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord 
was  the  appearance  of  one  who  never  had  been  really  dead 
and  was  now  merely  resuscitated.  This  theory  of  Paulus  has 
been  brought  forward  and  revamped  by  various  rationalistic 
writers  in  our  own  time  and  seems  to  be  a  favorite  theory 
of  those  who,  today,  would  deny  the  reality  of  our  Lord's 
resurrection.  To  sustain  this  view,  appeal  has  been  made 
.0  the  short  time  Jesus  hung  upon  the  cross  and  to  the  fact 

236 


The  Resurrection   of  Jesus   Christ 

that  history  tells  us  of  one,  in  the  time  of  Josephus,  taken  down 
from  the  cross  and  nursed  back  to  life.  But  to  this  we  an- 
swer: (i)  Remember  the  events  preceding  the  crucifixion; 
the  agony  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane;  the  awful  ordeal  of 
the  four  trials ;  the  scourging  and  the  consequent  physical  con- 
dition in  which  all  this  left  Jesus.  Remember,  too,  the  water  and 
the  blood  that  poured  from  His  pierced  side.  (2)  In  the  sec- 
ond place,  we  reply,  His  enemies  would  take,  and  did  take, 
all  necessary  precautions  against  such  a  thing  as  this  happen- 
ing. (John  19:34.)  (3)  We  reply,  in  the  third  place,  If 
Jesus  had  been  merely  resuscitated,  He  would  have  been  so 
weak,  such  an  utter  physical  wreck,  that  His  reappearance 
would  have  been  measured  at  its  real  value,  and  the  moral 
transformation  in  the  disciples,  for  which  we  are  trying  to 
account,  would  still  remain  unaccounted  for.  The  officer  in  the 
time  of  Josephus,  who  is  cited  in  proof,  though  brought  back 
to  life,  was  an  utter  physical  wreck.  (4)  We  reply,  in  the 
fourth  place,  If  brought  back  to  life,  the  apostles  and  friends 
of  Jesus,  who  are  the  ones  who  are  supposed  to  have  brought 
Him  back  to  life,  would  have  known  how  they  brought  Him 
back  to  life,  and  that  it  was  not  a  case  of  resurrection  but  of 
resuscitation,  and  the  main  fact  to  be  accounted  for,  namely, 
the  change  in  themselves,  would  remain  unaccounted  for.  The 
attempted  explanation  is  an  explanation  that  does  not  explain. 
(5)  In  the  fifth  place,  we  reply,  that  the  moral  difficulty  is 
the  greatest  of  all,  for  if  it  was  merely  a  case  of  resuscitation, 
then  Jesus  tried  to  palm  Himself  off  as  one  risen  from  the 
dead  when,  in  reality.  He  was  nothing  of  the  sort.  In  that 
case  He  would  be  an  arch-impostor  and  the  whole  Christian 
system  rests  on  a  fraud  as  its  ultimate  foundation.  Is  it  pos- 
sible to  believe  that  such  a  system  of  religion  as  that  of  Jesus 
Christ,   embodying  such   exalted   principles  and   precepts  of 

237 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

truth,  purity  and  love  "originated  in  a  deliberately  planned 
fraud?"  No  one  whose  own  heart  is  not  cankered  by  fraud 
and  trickery  can  believe  Jesus  to  have  been  an  impostor  and 
His  religion  to  have  been  founded  upon  fraud.  A  leader  of 
the  rationalistic  forces  in  England  has  recently  tried  to  prove 
the  theory  that  Jesus  was  only  apparently  dead  by  appealing 
to  the  fact  that  when  the  side  of  Jesus  was  pierced  blood 
came  forth,  and  asks:  "Can  a  dead  man  bleed?"  To  this  the 
sufficient  reply  is  that  when  a  man  dies  of,  what  is  called  in 
popular  language,  a  broken  heart,  the  blood  escapes  into  the 
pericardium  and  after  standing  there  for  a  short  time  it 
separates  into  serum  (the  water)  and  clot  (the  red  corpuscles, 
blood),  and  thus,  if  a  man  were  dead,  if  his  side  were  pierced 
by  a  spear,  and  the  point  of  the  spear  entered  the  pericardium, 
"blood  and  water"  would  flow  out  just  as  the  record  states  it 
did ;  and  what  is  brought  forth  as  a  proof  that  Jesus  was  not 
really  dead,  is,  in  reality,  a  proof  that  He  was,  and  an  illus- 
tration of  the  minute  accuracy  of  the  story.  It  could  not  have 
been  made  up  in  this  way  if  it  were  not  actual  fact. 

We  have  eliminated  all  other  possible  suppositions.  We 
have  but  one  left:  namely,  Jesus  really  was  raised  from  the 
dead  the  third  day,  as  recorded  in  the  four  Gospels.  The  des- 
perate straits  to  which  those  who  attempt  to  deny  it  are  driven 
are  themselves  proof  of  the  fact. 

We  have,  then,  several  independent  lines  of  argument 
pointing  decisively  and  conclusively  to  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  from  the  dead.  Some  of  them  taken  separately  prove 
the  fact,  but  taken  together  they  constitute  an  argument  that 
makes  doubt  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  impossible  to  the 
candid  mind.  Of  course,  if  one  is  determined  not  to  believe, 
no  amount  of  proof  will  convince  him.  Such  a  man  must 
be  left  to  his  own  deliberate  choice  of  error  and  falsehood, 

238 


The  Resurrection   of  Jesus   Christ 

but  any  man  who  really  desires  to  know  the  truth  and  is  will- 
ing to  obey  it  at  any  cost,  must  accept  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  as  an  historically  proven   fact. 

A  brilliant  lawyer  in  New  York  City  some  time  ago 
spoke  to  a  prominent  minister  of  that  city  asking  him  if  he 
really  believed  that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead.  The  minister 
replied  that  he  did,  and  asked  the  privilege  of  presenting  the 
proof  to  the  lawyer.  The  lawyer  took  the  material  offered 
in  proof  away  and  studied  it.  He  returned  to  the  minister 
and  said :  *T  am  convinced  that  Jesus  really  did  rise  from 
the  dead  But,"  he  then  added,  *T  am  no  nearer  being  a  Chris- 
tian than  I  was  before.  I  thought  that  the  difficulty  was  with 
my  head.     I  find  that  it  is  really  with  my  heart." 

There  is  really  but  one  weighty  objection  to  the  doctrine 
that  Jesus  arose  from  the  dead,  and  that  is,  "There  is  no  con- 
clusive evidence  that  any  other  ever  arose."  To  this  a  suffi- 
cient answer  would  be,  even  if  it  v/ere  certain  that  no  other 
ever  arose,  it  would  not  at  all  prove  that  Jesus  did  not  arise, 
for  the  life  of  Jesus  was  unique.  His  nature  was  unique.  His 
character  was  unique.  His  mission  was  unique.  His  history 
was  unique,  and  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  but  rather  to 
be  expected,  that  the  issue  of  such  a  life  should  also  be 
unique.  However,  all  this  objection  is  simply  David  Hume's 
exploded  argument  against  the  possibility  of  the  miraculous 
revamped.  According  to  this  argument,  no  amount  of  evi- 
dence can  prove  a  miracle,  because  miracles  are  contrary  to 
all  experience.  But  are  miracles  contrary  to  all  experience? 
To  start  out  by  saying  that  they  are  is  to  beg  the  very  question 
at  issue.  They  may  be  outside  of  your  experience  and  mine, 
they  may  be  outside  the  experience  of  this  entire  generation, 
but  your  experience  and  mine  and  the  experience  of  this  en- 
tire generation  is  not  "all  experience."    Every  student  of  ge- 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

olog^  and  astronomy  knows  that  things  have  occurred  in  the 
past  which  are  entirely  outside  of  the  experience  of  the  present 
generation.  Things  have  occurred  within  the  last  ten  years 
that  are  entirely  outside  of  the  experience  of  the  fifty  years 
preceding  it.  True  science  does  not  start  with  an  a  priori 
hypothesis  that  certain  things  are  impossible,  but  simply 
examines  the  evidence  to  find  out  what  has  actually  occurred. 
It  does  not  twist  its  observed  facts  to  make  them  accord 
with  a  priori  theories,  but  seeks  to  make  its  theories  accord 
with  the  facts  as  observed.  To  say  that  miracles  are  impos- 
sible, and  that  no  amount  of  evidence  can  prove  a  miracle, 
is  to  be  supremely  unscientific.  Within  the  past  few  years, 
in  the  domain  of  chemistry,  for  example,  discoveries  have  been 
made  regarding  radium,  which  seemed  to  run  counter  to  all 
previous  observations  regarding  chemical  elements  and  to 
well-established  chemical  theories.  But  the  scientist  has  not, 
therefore,  said  that  these  discoveries  about  radium  cannot 
be  true;  he  has,  rather,  gone  to  work  to  find  out  where  the 
trouble  was  in  his  previous  theories.  The  observed  and  re- 
corded facts  in  the  case  before  us  prove,  to  a  demonstration, 
that  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead,  and  true  science  must  accept 
this  conclusion  and  conform  its  theories  to  this  observed  fact. 
The  fact  of  the  actual  and  literal  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ 
from  the  dead  cannot  be  denied  by  any  man  who  will  study 
the  evidence  in  the  case  with  a  candid  desire  to  find  what  the 
fact  is,  and  not  merely  to  support  an  a  priori  theory. 


240 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  DEITY  OF  OUR  LORD  AND  SAVIOUR,  JESUS 

CHRIST 

BY  DR.  R.  A.   TORREY 

I  well  remember  that  when  I  was  examined  for  license  to 
preach,  one  of  the  questions  put  to  me  was,  "What  are  the 
proof  texts  for  the  Divinity  of  Christ?"  And  in  answering 
the  question  I  racked  my  brain  for  a  few  proof  texts,  but 
when  I  came  to  study  the  Bible  in  a  thorough  way,  I  dis- 
covered, to  my  surprise,  that  there  were  not  merely  a  few 
proof  texts,  but  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Deity  of  Christ  was 
found  everywhere.  There  are  at  least  six  distinct  lines  of 
proof  in  the  Bible  that  Jesus  Christ  is  not  merely  divine,  but 
that  He  is  God^  God  manifest  in  the  flesh. 

I.  The  first  line  of  proof  is  that  sixteen  names  clearly 
implying  Deity  are  used  of  Christ  in  the  Bible,  some  of  them 
over  and  over  again,  the  total  number  of  passages  reaching  far 
into  the  hundreds.     These  names  are : 

1.  "The  Son  of  God.''  That  this  was  a  distinctly  divine 
name  appears  from  John  5:18,  where  we  are  told,  "Therefore 
the  Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill  Him,  because  He  had  not 
only  broken  the  Sabbath,  but  said  also  that  God  was  His 
Father,  making  Himself  equal  with  God." 

2.  "The  only  begotten  Son."  This  occurs  five  times.  It 
is  evident  that  the  statement  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  God  only  in  the  same  sense  that  all  men  are  the  sons  of 

241 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Nezv  Theology 

God  is  not  true.  In  Mark  12:6,  Jesus  says:  ''Having  yet 
therefore  One  Son,  His  well-beloved,  He  sent  Him  also  last 
unto  them,  saying,  They  will  reverence  IMy  Son."  Here  Jesus 
Himself,  having  spoken  of  all  the  prophets  as  servants  of 
God,  speaks  of  Himself  as  "One,"  a  "beloved  Son." 

3.  ''The  First  and  the  Last."  Rev.  11 117.  That  this  is  a 
distinctly  divine  name  is  evident  from  Is.  41 14,  and  Is.  44 :6, 
where  it  is  used  of  Jehovah. 

4.  "The  Alpha  and  Omega." 

5.  "The  Beginning  and  the  Ending."  These  two  last 
names  are  used  of  Jesus  Christ  in  Rev.  22:12,  13,  16,  and  in 
Rev.  1 :8,  it  is  the  Lord  God  Who  is  called  "The  Alpha  and 
Omega." 

6.  "The  Holy  One."  Acts  3:14.  In  Hos.  11:9,  and 
many  other  passages,  it  is  God,  who  is  "The  Holy  One." 

7.  "The  Lord."  This  name  or  title  is  used  of  Jesus 
several  hundred  times.  The  name  translated  "Lord"  is  used 
in  the  New  Testament  in  speaking  of  men  nine  times,  but  not 
at  all  in  the  way  it  is  used  of  Christ.  When  used  of  men 
the  definite  article  is  omitted.  Jesus  is  spoken  of  as  "The 
Lord,"  just  as  God  is.  In  Acts  4:26,  God,  the  Father,  is 
spoken  of  as  "The  Lord,"  and  eight  verses  further  on  Jesus  is 
called  "The  Lord."  If  any  one  doubts  the  attitude  of  the 
apostles  of  Jesus  toward  Him  as  Divine,  tbey  would  do  well  to 
read  one  after  another  the  passages  which  speak  of  Him  as 
Lord. 

8.  "Lord  of  all,"  Acts  10 136. 

9.  "The  Lord  of  Glory,"  i  Cor.  2:8.  In  Ps.  24:8-10, 
"The  Lord  of  Hosts,  He  is  the  King  of  Glory." 

10.  "Wonderful,"  Is.  9:6;  cf.  with  this  Judges  13:18; 
R.  v.,  where  it  is  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  who  says  His  nam4 
is  Wonderful.     And  it  would  be  easy  to  prove,   from  01(jl 

24^ 


The  Deity  of  Our  Lord  and  Saviour 

Testament  Scripture,  that  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  was  a  Divine 
Person,  namely,  Christ,  before  His  incarnation. 

11.  "Mighty  God,"  Is.  9:6. 

12.  "Father  of  Eternity,"  Is.  9:6;  R.  V.     Margin. 

13.  "God."  In  Heb.  i  :8  Jesus  is  called  "God"  in  so 
many  words,  "But  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  forever  and  ever." 
In  John  20 :28  when  Thomas  fell  at  the  feet  of  our  Lord  and 
cried  to  Him:  "My  Lord  and  my  God,""  Jesus  accepted  the 
ascription  of  Deity  to  Himself  and  gently  rebuked  Thomas 
for  not  believing  it  before. 

14.  "God  with  us,"  Matt.  1 123. 

15.  "Our  Great  God,"  Titus  2:13,  R.  V. 

16.  "God  blessed  forever,"  Rom.  9:5. 

11.  The  second  line  of  proof  of  the  Deity  of  our  Lord  is 
that  five  or  more  distinctively  divine  attributes  are  ascribed 
to  Jesus  Christ  and  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  is  said  to 
dwell  in  Him. 

I.  In  Heb.  1 13  and  Eph.  i  :2o  Omnipotence  is  ascribed 
to  Jesus  Christ.  In  many  passages  we  are  taught  that  He 
had  power  over  disease,  that  it  was  subject  to  His  Word;  He 
had  power  over  death,  that  it  was  subject  to  His  Word;  that 
He  had  power  over  the  winds  and  the  sea,  that  they  were 
subject  to  His  Word;  that  He  had  power  over  demons,  that 
they  were  subject  to  His  Word.  2.  In  John  21 117  and  16, 
30,  Omniscience  is  ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ.  In  many 
passages  we  are  taught  that  He  knew  the  secret  thoughts  of 
men ;  that  He  knew  all  m©n ;  that  He  knew  what  was  in  man. 
Whereas,  in  Jer.  17:9,  10,  we  are  taught  that  Jehovah  only 
knows  the  hearts  of  men.  We  are  also  taught  in  the  New 
Testament  that  Jesus  knew,  from  the  beginning,  man's  present 
thoughts  and  their  future  choices;  that  He  knew  what  they 
wtere  doing  at  a  distance;  that  He  knew  the  future,  not  onl^ 

548 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

regarding  God's  acts,  but  regarding  the  minute  specific  acts 
of  men,  and  even  regarding  the  fishes  of  the  sea.  And  in 
Col.  2 :3,  we  are  taught  that  in  Him  "are  hid  all  the  treasures 
of  wisdom  and  knowledge." 

3.  In  J\Iatt.  18:20  and  28:30  and  John  3:13;  14:20;  2 
Cor.  13:5;  Eph.  1:23,  Omnipresence  is  ascribed  to  Jesus 
Christ.  4.  In  John  1:1;  Micah  5  :2;  Col.  i  :i7;  Is.  9:6;  John 
17 :5  ;  John  8 :55  ;  i  John  i  :i ;  Heb.  13  :8;  Eternity  is  ascribed 
to  Jesus  Christ.  5.  In  Heb.  13:8;  1:12,  Immutability  is 
ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ.  6.  In  Phil.  2:6,  we  are  taught 
that  Jesus  Christ,  before  His  incarnation,  was  in  the  form 
OF  God.  The  Greek  word  translated  ''form"  means  "the 
form  by  which  a  person  or  thing  strikes  the  vision,  the  exter- 
nal appearance."  (Thayer's  Greek-Eng.  Lexicon  of  the  N. 
T.).  Summing  it  all  up  under  this  head,  Paul  declares  in 
Col.  2 :9,  that  "In  Him  dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily." 

III.  The  third  line  of  proof  of  the  Deity  of  our  Lord  is 
that  seven  distinctively  divine  oifices  are  predicated  of  Jesus 
Christ.  I.  In  Heb.  1:10;  John  1:3;  Col.  1:16,  Creation  is 
ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ.  2.  In  Heb.  i  :3,  the  preservation 
OF  the  whole  material  universe  is  ascribed  to  Jesus 
Christ.  3.  In  Mark  2:5-10;  Luke  7:48,  and  many  other 
passages,  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  ascribed  to  Jesus 
Christ.  In  this  connection  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  in  Luke 
7  :40-47,  Jesus  says  that  sins  are  against  Himself.  He  speaks 
of  both  Simon  and  the  woman  as  sinners,  being  debtors  to 
Himsalf.  But  sin  can  only  be  committed  against  God.  We 
can  wrong  others,  but  not  sin  against  them  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word  (cf.  Ps.  5i,:4).  4.  In  John  6:39-44,  the 
raising  of  the  dead  is  ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ.  5.  In  Phil. 
3:21,  R.  v.,  TPiE  tr.\nsformation  of  our  earthly  bodies 

244 


The  Deity   of   Our  Lord   and  Saviour 

INTO  THE  CELESTIAL  BODY  IS  ASCRIBED  TO  JeSUS  ChRIST.  6.  In 
2    Tim.   4:1,    R.    v.,    THE   JUDGMENT    OF   THE   LIVING   AND    THE 

DE-\D  IS  ASCRIBED  TO  Jesus  Christ.  Jcsus  Himself  empha- 
sized the  divine  character  of  these  offices  in  John  5  :22,  23.  He 
says,  "For  the  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed  all 
judgment  unto  the  Son :  That  all  men  should  honor  the  Son, 
even  as  they  honor  the  Father.  He  that  honoreth  not  the  Son 
honoreth  not  the  Father,  which  hath  sent  Him/'     7.  In  John 

10:28;    17:2,  the  bestowal  of   eternal   life   is   ASCRIBED   TO 

Jesus  Christ. 

IV.  The  fourth  line  of  proof  of  the  Deity  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  is  that  statements  zvhich,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
are  made  distinctly  of  Jehovah,  God,  are  taken  in  the  New 
Testament  to  refer  to  Jesus  Christ.  That  is,  in  New  Testa- 
ment thought  and  doctrine^  Jesus  Christ  occupies  the 

PLACE  THAT  JeHOVAH  OCCUPIES  IN  OlD  TeSTAMENT  THOUGHT 

AND  DOCTRINE.  For  example,  in  Heb.  i  :io-i2,  we  read  these 
words,  "And,  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the 
foundation  of  the  earth ;  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  Thy 
hands ;  they  shall  perish,  but  Thou  remainest ;  and  they  shall 
all  wax  old  as  doth  a  garment;  and  as  a  vesture  shalt  Thou 
fold  them  up,  and  they  shall  be  changed;  but  Thou  art  the 
same,  and  Thy  years  shall  not  fail."  This  is  a  quotation  of  a 
statement  made  about  God  in  Ps.  102:24-27.  In  Luke 
1 :68,  69,  76,  we  read :  "Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel ; 
for  He  hath  visited  and  redeemed  His  people,  and  hath 
raised    up   an    horn   of    salvation    for    us    in    the    house   of 

His  servant  David And  Thou,   Child,   shalt  be 

called  the  prophet  of  the  Highest;  for  Thou  shalt  go  before 
the  face  of  the  Lord  to  prepare  His  ways."  Here,  it  is  evident, 
that  Jesus  is  the  Lord  before  whose  face  the  messenger  goes 
to  prepare  His  way  before  Him,  but  in  Is.  40:3,  4  (see  Amer. 

245 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

R.  V.)»  it  is  Jehovah  whose  way  the  messenger  is  to  prepare 
before  Him.  In  Rev.  2 123,  we  read,  "And  I  will  kill  her 
children  with  death ;  and  all  the  churches  shall  know  that 
I  am  He  which  searcheth  the  reins  and  hearts :  and  I  will  give 
unto  every  one  of  you  according  to  your  works."  Here  it  is 
Jesus  who  searcheth  the  reins  and  hearts,  but  in  the  Old 
Testament,  in  Jer.  11:20;  17:10,  Jehovah  is  represented  as 
saying  that  He  is  the  One  who  tries  the  reins  and  heart. 
In  Luke  2  :32,  we  read  of  Jesus,  "A  light  to  lighten  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  the  glory  of  Thy  people  Israel";  but  in  Is.  60:19,  we 
read  (Am.  R.  V.),  "Jehovah  will  be  unto  thee  an  everlasting 
light  and  thy  God  thy  glory."  In  Is.  6:1,  3,  10,  we  read  cer- 
tain words  that  Isaiah  spoke  when  He  sazv  the  glory  of  Je- 
hovah of  hosts,  but  in  John  12:37-41,  John  says  it  was  when 
Isaiah  saw  the  glory  of  Jesus  Christ  that  he  said  this.  Of 
course,  the  inference  is  plain.  There  are  many  other  passages 
of  a  similar  character  where  statements  which,  in  the  Old 
Testament,  are  made  unmistakably  of  Jehovah  God  are  taken 
in  the  New  Testament  to  refer  to  Jesus  Christ.  "Lord"  in  the 
Old  Testament  always  refers  to  God,  except  where  the  context 
clearly  indicates  otherwise.  "Lord"  in  the  New  Testament 
always  refers  to  Jesus  Christ,  except  where  the  context  clearly 
indicates  otherwise. 

V.  The  fifth  line  of  proof  of  the  Deity  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  is  that  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  -is  coupled  with 
THAT  OF  God,  the  Father,  in  numerous  passages  in  a  way 
that  it  would  be  impossible  to  couple  the  name  of  any 
finite  being.  Illustrations  of  this  can  be  found  in  2  Cor. 
13:14;  Matt.  28:19;  I  Thess.  3:11 ;  i  Cor.  12:4:6;  Tit,  3  :4,  5  ; 
Rom.  1:7;  Jas.  1:1;  especially  John  14:13;  2  Pet.  1:1;  cf. 
R.  v.;  Col.  2:2  (see  R.  V.)  ;  John  17:3;  John  14:1;  cf.  Jer. 
17:5-7;  Rev.  7:10;  5:13 

^46 


The  Deity  of  Our  Lord  and  Saziour 

VI.  The  last,  and,  if  possible,  the  most  decisive  proof 
of  the  Deity  of  onr  Lord  Jesus  is  that  we  are  taught  in 
Scripture  that  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped AS  God  by  axcels  and  men.  Passages  in  point  are 
Matt.  28:9;  Luke  24:52;  Matt.  14:33  cf.  Acts  10:25,  26; 
Rev.  22 :8,  9 ;  I\Ialt.  4  \g,  10.  In  these  passages  we  see  that 
Jesus  Christ  accepted,  without  hesitation,  the  worship  which 
men  and  angels  declined  with  fear  and  horror.  It  is  often 
said  that  the  verb  translated  ''worship"  in  these  passages 
is  sometimes  used  cf  reverence  paid  to  men  in  high  position. 
We  are  so  told  in  the  margin  of  the  American  R.  V.  The 
statement  is  true,  but  it  is  misleading.  The  word  is  used 
of  reverence  paid  to  men  in  high  position,  but  it  is  not  used  in 
this  way  by  worshippers  of  Jehovah,  as  is  seen  by  the  way 
in  which  both  Peter  and  the  angel  drew  back  when  such  wor- 
ship was  offered  to  them.  In  Heb.  i  :6  we  read,  "And  again, 
when  he  bringeth  in  the  first  begotten  into  the  world,  he 
saith,  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  Him."  There 
can  be  no  possible  mistaking  of  the  meaning  of  this  passage. 
And  in  Phil.  2:10,  11,  we  read,  "That  at  the  name  of  Jesus 
every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  Heaven,  and  things  in 
earth,  and  things  under  the  earth;  and  that  every  tongue 
should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God, 
the  Father."  And  from  all  these  passages  it  is  evident  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  a  Person  to  be  worshipped  by  angels  and  men, 
even  as  God,  the  Father,   is  worshipped. 

To  sum  it  all  up,  by  the  use  of  numerous  Divine  names, 
by  the  ascription  of  all  the  distinctively  Divine  attributes,  by 
the  predication  of  several  Divine  offices,  by  referring  state- 
ments which,  in  tl.e  Old  Testament,  distinctly  name  Jehovah 
God  as  their  subject  to  Jesus  Christ  in  the  New  Testament,  by 
coupling  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  with  that  of   God,  thr 

247 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  New  Theology 

Father,  in  a  way  in  which  it  would  be  impossible  to  couple  that 
of  any  finite  being  with  that  of  the  Deity  and  by  the  clear 
teaching  that  Jesus  Christ  should  be  worshipped  even  as  God, 
the  Father,  is  worshipped — in  all  these  unmistakable  ways 
God,  in  His  Word,  distinctly  proclaims  that  Jesus  Christ  is  a 
Divine  Being— is  GOD. 


248 


CHAPTER  XI 
THE  DEITY  OF  CHRIST 

BY   PROF.   BENJAMIN   B.    WARFIELD,    D.   D.,   LU   D., 
PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY. 

A  recent  writer  has  remarked  that  our  assured  conviction 
of  the  Deity  of  Christ  rests,  not  upon  "proof-texts  or  passages, 
nor  upon  old  arguments  drawn  from  these,  but  upon  the  gen- 
eral fact  of  the  whole  manifestation  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of 
the  whole  impression  left  by  Him  upon  the  world.'*  The  an- 
tithesis is  too  absolute,  and  possibly  betrays  an  unwarranted 
distrust  of  the  evidence  of  Scripture.  To  make  it  just,  we 
should  read  the  statement  rather  thus:  Our  conviction  of  the 
Deity  of  Christ  rests  not  alone  on  the  Scriptural  passages 
which  assert  it,  but  also  on  His  entire  impression  on  the  world ; 
or  perhaps  thus :  Our  conviction  rests  not  more  on  the  Scrip- 
tural assertions  than  upon  His  entire  manifestation.  Both 
lines  of  evidence  are  valid;  and  when  twisted  together  form 
an  unbreakable  cord.  The  proof-texts  and  passages  do  prove 
that  Jesus  was  esteemed  divine  by  those  who  companied 
with  Him;  that  He  esteemed  Himself  divine;  that  He  was 
recognized  as  divine  by  those  who  were  taught  by  the  Spirit; 
that,  in  fine.  He  was  divine.  But  over  and  above  this  Biblical 
evidence  the  impression  Jesus  has  left  upon  the  world  bears 
independent  testimony  to  His  Deity,  and  it  may  well  be  that 
to  many  minds  this  will  seem  the  most  conclusive  of  all  its 
evidences.     It  certainly  is  very  cogent  and  impressive, 

249 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

EXPERIENCE  AS   PROOF 

The  justification  which  the  author  we  have  just  quoted 
gives  of  his  neglecting  the  scriptural  evidence  in  favor  of  that 
borne  by  Jesus'  impression  on  the  world  is  also  open  to  criti- 
cism. "J^sus  Christ,"  he  tells  us,  ''is  one  of  those  essential 
truths  which  are  too  great  to  be  proved,  like  God,  or  freedom, 
or  immortality."  Such  things  rest,  it  seems,  not  on  proofs 
but  on  experience.  We  need  not  stop  to  point  out  that  this 
experience  is  itself  a  proof.  We  wish  rather  to  point  out  that 
some  confusion  seems  to  have  been  fallen  into  here  between 
our  ability  to  marshal  the  proof  by  which  we  are  convinced 
and  our  accessibility  to  its  force.  It  is  quite  true  that  "the 
most  essential  conclusions  of  the  human  mind  are  much  wider 
and  stronger  than  the  arguments  by  which  they  are  sup- 
ported"; that  the  proofs  *'are  always  changing  but  the  beliefs 
persist."  But  this  is  not  because  the  conclusions  in  question 
rest  on  no  sound  proofs ;  but  because  we  have  not  had  the  skill 
to  adduce,  in  our  argumentative  presentations  of  them,  the 
really  fundamental  proofs  on  which  they  rest. 

UNCONSCIOUS   RATIONALITY 

A  man  recognizes  on  sight  the  face  of  his  friend,  or  his 
own  handwriting.  Ask  him  how  he  knows  this  face  to  be  that 
of  his  friend,  or  this  handwriting  to  be  his  own,  and  he  is 
dmmb,  or,  seeking  to  reply,  babbles  nonsense^  Yet  his  recog- 
nition rests  on  solid  grounds,  though  he  lacks  analytical  skill 
to  isolate  and  state  these  solid  grounds.  We  believe  in  God 
and  freedom  and  immortality  on  good  grounds,  though  we 
may  not  be  able  satisfactorily  to  analyze  these  grounds.  No 
true  conviction  exists  without  adequate  rational  grounding  in 

250 


The  Deity  of  CJjrist 

evidence.  So,  if  we  are  solidly  assured  of  the  deity  of  Christ, 
it  will  be  on  adequate  grounds,  appealing  to  the  reason.  But 
it  may  well  be  on  grounds  not  analyzed,  perhaps  not  analyz- 
able,  by  us,  so  as  to  exhibit  themselves  in  the  forms  of  formal 
logic. 

We  do  not  need  to  wait  to  analyze  the  grounds  of  our 
convictions  before  they  operate  to  produce  convictions,  any 
more  than  we  need  to  wait  to  analyze  our  food  before  it  nour- 
ishes us;  and  we  can  soundly  believe  on  evidence  much  mixed 
with  error,  just  as  we  can  thrive  on  food  far  from  pure.  The 
alchemy  of  the  mind,  as  of  the  digestive  tract,  knows  how  to 
separate  out  from  the  mass  what  it  requires  for  its  support; 
and  as  we  may  live  without  any  knowledge  of  chemistry,  so 
we  may  possess  earnest  convictions,  solidly  founded  in  right 
reason,  without  the  slightest  knowledge  of  logic.  The  Chris- 
tian's conviction  of  the  deity  of  his  Lord  does  not  depend  for 
its  soundness  on  the  Christian's  ability  convincingly  to  state 
the  grounds  of  his  conviction.  The  evidence  he  offers  for  it 
may  be  wholly  inadequate,  while  the  evidence  on  which  it 
rests  may  be  absolutely  compelling. 

TESTIMONY   IN   SOLUTION 

The  very  abundance  and  persuasiveness  of  the  evidence  of 
the  deity  of  Christ  greatly  increases  the  difficulty  of  adequately 
stating  it.  This  is  true  even  of  the  scriptural  evidence,  as  pre- 
cise and  definite  as  much  of  it  is.  For  it  is  a  true  remark  of 
Dr.  Dale's  that  the  particular  texts  in  which  it  is  definitely 
asserted  are  far  from  the  whole,  or  even  the  most  impressive, 
proofs  which  the  Scriptures  supply  of  our  Lord's  deity.  He 
compares  these  texts  to  the  salt-crystals  which  appear  on  the 
sand  of  the  sea-beach  after  the  tide  has   receded.     "These 

251 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Neiv  Theology 

are  not,"  he  remarks,  "the  strongest,  though  they  may  be 
the  most  apparent,  proofs  that  the  sea  is  salt;  the  salt  is 
present  in  solution  in  every  bucket  of  sea-water."  The  deity 
of  Christ  is  in  solution  in  every  page  of  the  New  Testament. 
Every  word  that  is  spoken  of  Him,  every  word  which  He  is 
reported  to  have  spoken  of  Himself,  is  spoken  on  the  assump- 
tion that  He  is  God.  And  that  is  the  reason  why  the  "criti- 
cism" which  addresses  itself  to  eliminating  the  testimony  of 
the  New  Testament  to  the  deity  of  our  Lord  has  set  itself  a 
hopeless  task.  The  New  Testament  itself  would  have  to  be 
eliminated.  Nor  can  we  get  behind  this  testimony.  Because 
the  deity  of  Christ  is  the  presupposition  of  every  word  of  the 
New  Testament,  it  is  impossible  to  select  words  out  of  the 
New  Testament  from  which  to  construct  earlier  documents  in 
which  the  deity  of  Christ  shall  not  be  assumed.  The  assured 
conviction  of  the  deity  of  Christ  is  coeval  with  Christianity  it- 
self. There  never  was  a  Christianity,  neither  in  the  times  of 
the  Apostles  nor  since,  of  which  this  was  not  a  prime  tenet. 

A  SATURATED  GOSPEL 

Let  us  observe  in  an  example  or  two  how  thoroughly 
saturated  the  Gospel  narrative  is  with  the  assumption  of  the 
deity  of  Christ,  so  that  it  crops  out  in  the  most  unexpected 
ways  and  places. 

In  three  passages  of  Matthew,  reporting  words  of  Jesus, 
He  is  represented  as  speaking  familiarly  and  in  the  most 
natural  manner  in  the  world,  of  "His  angels"  (13:41;  16:27; 
24:31).  In  all  three  He  designates  Himself  as  the  "Son  of 
man" ;  and  in  all  three  there  are  additional  suggestions  of  His 
majesty.  "The  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth  His  angels,  and 
they  shall  gather  out  of  His  kingdom  all  things  that  cause 

252 


The  Deify  of  Christ 

stumbling  and  those  that  do  iniquity,  and  shall  cast  them  into 
the  furnace  of  fire/' 

Who  is  this  Son  of  Man  who  has  angels,  by  whose  instru- 
mentality the  final  judgment  is  executed  at  His  command? 
"The  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  His  Father  with 
His  angels ;  and  then  shall  He  reward  every  man  according  to 
his  deeds."  Who  is  this  Son  of  man  surrounded  by  His  an- 
gels, in  whose  hands  are  the  issues  of  life?  The  Son  of  man 
*'shall  send  forth  His  angels  with  a  great  sound  of  a  trumpet, 
and  they  shall  gather  together  His  elect  from  the  four  winds, 
from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other."  Who  is  this  Son  of 
man  at  whose  behest  His  angels  winnow  men  ?  A  scrutiny  of 
the  passages  will  show  that  it  is  not  a  peculiar  body  of  angels 
which  is  meant  by  the  Son  of  man's  angels,  but  just  the  angels 
as  a  body,  who  are  His  to  serve  Him  as  He  commands. 
In  a  word,  Jesus  Christ  is  above  angels  (Mark  13:32) — as  is 
argued  at  explicit  length  at  the  beginning  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  "To  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time, 
Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  etc."     (Heb.  1:13.) 

HEAVEN   COME  TO  EARTH 

There  are  three  parables  recorded  in  the  fifteenth  chapter 
of  Luke  as  spoken  by  our  Lord  in  His  defence  against  the 
murmurs  of  the  Pharisees  at  His  receiving  sinners  and  eating 
with  them.  The  essence  of  the  defence  which  our  Lord  offers 
for  Himself  is,  that  there  is  joy  in  heaven  over  repentant  sin- 
ners !  Why  "in  heaven,"  "before  the  throne  of  God"  ?  Is  He 
merely  setting  the  judgment  of  heaven  over  against  that  of 
earth,  or  pointing  forward  to  His  future  vindication?  By  no 
means.  He  is  representing  His  action  in  receiving  sinners,  in 
seeking  the  lost,  as  His  proper  action,  because  it  is  the  normal 

253 


The  Higher  CrMisni  and  The  New  Theology 

conduct  of  heaven,  manifested  in  Him.  He  is  heaven  come 
to  earth.  His  defence  is  thus  simply  the  unveiHng  of  what  the 
real  nature  of  the  transaction  is.  The  lost  when  they  come  to 
Him  are  received  because  this  is  heaven's  way;  and  He  can- 
not act  otherwise  than  in  heaven's  way.  He  tacitly  assumes 
the  good  Shepherd's  part  as  His  own. 

THE  UNIQUE  POSITION 

All  the  great  designations  are  not  so  much  asserted  as  as- 
sumed by  Him  for  Himself.  He  does  not  call  Himself  a 
prophet,  though  He  accepts  this  designation  from  others :  He 
places  Himself  above  all  the  prophets,  even  above  John,  the 
greatest  of  the  prophets,  as  Him  to  whom  all  the  prophets 
look  forward.  If  He  calls  Himself  Messiah,  He  fills  that 
term,  by  doing  so,  with  a  deeper  significance,  dwelling  ever  on 
the  unique  relation  of  Messiah  to  God  as  His  representative 
and  His  Son.  Nor  is  He  satisfied  to  represent  himself  merely 
as  standing  in  a  unique  relation  to  God :  He  proclaims  Him- 
self to  be  the  recipient  of  the  divine  fullness,  the  sharer  in  all 
that  God  has  (Matt.  11:28).  He  speaks  freely  of  Himself 
indeed  as  God's  Other,  the  manifestation  of  God  on  earth, 
whom  to  have  seen  was  to  have  seen  the  Father  also,  and  who 
does  the  work  of  God  on  earth.  He  openly  claims  divine 
prerogatives— the  reading  of  the  heart  of  man,  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  the  exercise  of  all  authority  in  heaven  and  earth. 
Indeed,  all  that  God  has  and  is  He  asserts  Himself  to  have 
and  be;  omnipotence,  omniscience,  perfection  belong  as  to  the 
one  so  to  the  other.  Not  only  does  He  perform  all  divine 
acts ;  His  self-consciousness  coalesces  with  the  divine  con- 
sciousness. If  His  followers  lagged  in  recognizing  His  deity, 
this  was  not  because  He  was  not  God  or  did  not  sufficiently 


The  Deity  of  Christ 

manifest  His  deity.    It  was  because  they  were  foolish  and  slow 
of  heart  to  believe  what  lay  patently  before  their  eyes. 

THE  GREAT  PROOF 

The  Scriptures  give  us  evidence  enough,  then,  that  Christ 
is  God.  But  the  Scriptures  are  far  from  giving  us  all  the 
evidence  we  have.  There  is,  for  example,  the  revolution  which 
Christ  has  wrought  in  the  world.  If,  indeed,  it  were  asked 
wliat  the  most  convincing  proof  of  the  deity  of  Christ  is,  per- 
haps the  best  answer  would  be,  just  Christianity.  The  new 
life  He  has  brought  into  the  world;  the  new  creation  which 
He  has  produced  by  His  life  and  work  in  the  world;  here  are 
at  least  His  most  palpable  credentials. 

Take  it  objectively.  Read  such  a  book  as  Harnack's  "The 
Expansion  of  Christianity,"  or  such  an  one  as  Von  Dob- 
schiitz's  "Christian  Life  in  the  Primitive  Church" — neither 
of  v.hich  allows  the  deity  of  Christ — and  then  ask.  Could  these 
things  have  been  wrought  by  power  less  than  divine?  And 
tl^.en  remember  that  these  things  were  not  only  wrought  in  that 
heathen  world  two  thousand  years  ago,  but  have  been  wrought 
over  again  every  generation  since;  for  Christianity  has  re- 
conquered the  world  to  itself  each  generation.  Think  of  how 
the  Christian  proclamation  spread,  eating  its  way  over  the 
world  like  fire  in  the  grass  of  a  prairie.  Think  how,  as  it 
spread,  it  transformed  lives.  The  thing,  whether  in  its  objec- 
tive or  in  its  subjective  aspect,  were  incredible,  had  it  not 
actually  occurred.  "Should  a  voyager,"  says  Charles  Darwin, 
"chance  to  be  on  the  point  of  shipwreck  on  some  unknown 
coast,  he  will  most  devoutly  pray  that  the  lesson  of  the  mis- 
sionary may  have  reached  thus  far.  The  lesson  of  the  mis- 
sionary is  the  enchanter's  wand."    Could  this  transforming-  in- 

255 


The  Higher  Criticism  arid  The  New  Theology 

fluence,  undiminished  after  two  millenniums,  have  proceeded 
from  a  mere  man?  It  is  historically  impossible  that  the  great 
movement  which  we  call  Christianity,  which  remains  unspent 
after  all  these  years,  could  have  originated  in  a  merely  human 
impulse;  or  could  represent  today  the  working  of  a  merely 
human  force. 

THE  PROOF  V^ITHIN 

Or  take  it  subjectively.  Every  Christian  has  within  him- 
self the  proof  of  the  transforming  power  of  Christ,  and  c^n 
repeat  the  blind  man's  syllogism :  Why  herein  is  the  marvel 
that  ye  know  not  whence  He  is,  and  yet  He  opened  my  eyes. 
"Spirits  are  not  touched  to  fine  issues  who  are  not  finely 
touched.'*  "Shall  we  trust,"  demands  an  eloquent  reasoner, 
"the  touch  of  our  fingers,  the  sight  of  our  eyes,  the  hearing 
of  our  ears,  and  not  trust  our  deepest  consciousness  of  our 
higher  nature — the  answer  of  conscience,  the  flower  of  spirit- 
ual gladness,  the  glow  of  spiritual  love  ?  To  deny  that  spiritual 
experience  is  as  real  as  physical  experience  is  to  slander  the 
noblest  faculties  of  our  nature.  It  is  to  say  that  one  half  of 
our  nature  tells  the  truth,  and  the  other  half  utters  lies.  The 
proposition  that  facts  in  the  spiritual  region  are  less  real  than 
facts  in  the  physical  realm  contradicts  all  philosophy."  The 
transformed  hearts  of  Christians,  registering  themselves  "in 
gentle  terms,  in  noble  motives,  in  lives  visibly  lived  under 
the  empire  of  great  aspirations" — these  are  the  ever-present 
proofs  of  the  divinity  of  the  Person  from  whom  their  inspira- 
tion is  drawn. 

The  supreme  proof  to  every  Christian  of  the  deity  of  his 
Lord  is  then  his  own  inner  experience  of  the  transforming 
power  of  his  Lord  upon  the  heart  and  life.  Not  more  surely 
docs  he  who  feels  the  present  warmth  of  the  sun  know  that  the 

2^6 


The  Deity  of  Christ 

sun  exists,  than  he  who  has  experienced  the  re-creative  power 
of  the  Lord  know  Him  to  be  his  Lord  and  his  God.  Here 
is,  perhaps  we  may  say  the  proper,  certainly  we  must  say  the 
most  convincing,  proof  to  every  Christian  of  the  deity  of 
Christ ;  a  proof  which  he  cannot  escape,  and  to  which,  whether 
he  is  capable  of  analyzing  it  or  drawing  it  out  in  logical  state- 
ment or  not,  he  cannot  fail  to  yield  his  sincere  and  unassailable 
conviction.  Whatever  else  he  may  or  may  not  be  assured  of 
he  knows  that  his  Redeemer  lives.  Because  He  lives,  we  shall 
live  also — that  was  the  Lord's  own  assurance.  Because  we 
live.  He  lives  also — that  is  the  ineradicable  conviction  of  every 
Christian  heart. 


55r 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  BIBLE  TEACHING  REGARDING  FUTURE  PUN- 
ISHMENT 

BY  DR.  R.  A.  TORREY 

There  is  no  doctrine  of  the  faith  of  our  fathers  which 
is  more  widely  questioned  at  the  present  day  than  that  con- 
cerning the  future  destiny  of  those  who  reject  Jesus  Christ 
in  the  life  that  now  is.  Even  in  circles  that  have  little  sym- 
pathy with  the  destructive  criticism,  or  with  the  denial  of  the 
Virgin  birth  of  our  Lord  and  His  bodily  resurrection  from 
the  dead  and  other  phases  of  thought  which  are  characteristic 
of  "the  new  theology/*  there  is  widespread  denial,  or  at  least 
doubt,  of  the  endless,  conscious  suffering  of  the  persistently 
impenitent.  Where  there  is  no  denial  or  doubt  regarding  this 
doctrine,  there  is  at  least  silence  concerning  it.  Very  grave  evils 
have  arisen  from  the  general  questioning  regarding  the  reality 
and  awfulness  of  a  future  hell.  A  firm  belief  that  there  is  a  hell 
and  that  men  would  receive,  in  a  future  life,  punishment  for 
the  sins  that  went  unpunished  in  the  life  that  now  is,  exerted 
a  mighty  restraining  influence  over  the  lives  of  men.  With 
the  weakening  of  that  belief  there  has  been  an  appalling 
increase  in  suicide,  social  impurity,  unfaithfulness  of  husbands 
to  wives  and  wives  to  husbands,  divorce,  and  all  kinds  of 
lewdness,  lavv-lessness  and  anarchy.  There  has  also  been  an 
appalling  decrease  in  the  churches  of  separation  from  th« 
world  and  of  concern  and  prayer  for  the  salvation  of  the  lost, 

2S8 


Future  Punishment 

at  home  and  abroad.  A  strong  belief  in  a  stern  doctrine, 
regarding  the  future  punishment  of  the  impenitent,  drives 
Christians  to  prayer  and  to  effort  for  the  salvation  of  the  lost 
as  almost  nothing  else  does. 

The  only  really  important  question  regarding  future  pun- 
ishment is,  What  does  the  Bible  teach  ?  Human  speculations  on 
such  a  subject  as  this  have  no  value  whatever.  All  we  know 
about  it  is  what  God  has  been  pleased  to  reveal.  Of  ourselves 
we  know  nothing  of  the  life  beyond  the  grave.  God  knows  all 
about  it.  God  has  been  pleased  to  reveal  to  us  much  that 
He  knows,  and  on  a  subject  like  this,  one  ounce  of  God's  reve- 
lation is  worth  ten  tons  of  man's  speculation.  Most  of  the 
false  theories  regarding  future  punishment  are  built  upon  the 
proposition  that  God  is  love.  To  this  fact  they  constantly  ap- 
peal to  give  force  to  their  arguments.  But  how  do  we  know 
that  God  is  love?  Only  from  the  Bible.  Human  reason  can- 
not prove  that  God  is  love  if  we  discard  the  Bible.  The  phy- 
sical universe  and  human  history  teach  that  there  is  a  God 
who  is  a  wise  and  beneficent  being,  but  they  do  not  teach 
that  God  is  love.  We  learn  this  entirely  from  that  revelation 
of  Himself  which  God  has  made  in  the  Bible.  Discredit  the 
Bible  and  we  have  no  satisfactory  proof  that  God  is  love. 
Now  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  is  true,  or  else  it  is  not  true. 
Now  if  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  is  true,  then  we  must  accept 
all  that  it  teaches,  and  we  must  accept  what  it  teaches  about 
future  punishment.  It  is  utterly  illogical  to  take  out  of 
the  Bible  the  things  that  we  like  and  reject  the  things  wc  do 
not  like.  To  take  a  statement  out  of  the  Bible  and  to  draw 
from  it  inferences  that  contradict  other  plain  teachings  of 
the  Bible  is  to  be  utterly  illogical.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
Bible  is  not  true,  we  have  no  proof  that  God  is  love,  and  all 
the  arguments  built  upon  that  fundamental  proposition  fall  to 

^59 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  Nezv  Theology 

the  ground,  and  consequently  all  the  loose  theories  of  future 
punishment,  which  start  out  with  the  love  of  God  as  their 
premise,  collapse.  We  may  take  whichever  horn  of  the  dilemma 
that  wx  please — that  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  is  true,  or  that 
the  teaching  of  the  Bible  is  not  true — and  in  either  case,  the 
doctrine  of  the  ultimate  salvation  of  all  men  can  be  shown 
to  be  untrue. 

Many  seek  to  discredit  the  Bible  in  order  to  get  relief 
from  this  stern  doctrine  regarding  future  retribution,  but  no 
relief  can  be  obtained  by  discrediting  the  Bible.  There  are 
two  absolutely  certain  facts  of  experience  and  observation. 
The  first  fact  is  that  whoever  sins  must  suffer,  and  suffer 
more  or  less  for  every  sin  which  he  commits.  We  all  know 
that  to  be  true.  The  second  certain  fact  of  experience  and 
observation  is  that  the  longer  one  sins,  the  more  deeply  he 
einks  down  into  sin  and  into  the  moral  bondage  and  blindness 
and  misery  and  shame  and  agony  and  despair  which  are  the 
consequence  of  sin.  Now  put  these  two  facts  together,  that 
whoever  sins  must  suffer,  and  the  longer  he  sins  the  deeper 
he  sinks  down  into  the  moral  bondage,  blindness,  misery, 
shame,  agony  and  despair  which  are  the  consequence  of  sin, 
and  when  the  possible  day  of  repentance  has  passed  (and  it 
must  be  passed  some  time),  what  have  we  left  but  an  ever- 
lasting hell.  The  only  change  that  the  Bible  introduces  into 
the  problem  is  that  it  points  out  the  way  of  escape  and  salva- 
tion from  sin  and  its  consequences,  and  those  who  seek  to  do 
away  with  the  doctrine  of  an  awful  and  eternal  hell  by  dis- 
crediting the  Bible  are  guilty  of  the  incredible  folly  of  trying 
to  shut  up  hell  by  closing  the  only  door  of  escape.  Loose 
doctrines,  regarding  future  punishment,  do  not  come  from 
consulting  reason  but  consulting  our  prejudices  and  our  un- 
sanctified  wishes. 

260 


Future  Punishment 

BUT  WHAT  DOES  THE  EIBLE  TELACII  REGARDING  FUTURE  PUNISH- 
MENT ? 

I.  That  there  is  a  Hell.  In  Matt.  5:29,  R.  V.,  Jesus 
says,  "And  if  thy  ri^ht  eye  causeth  thee  to  stumble,  pluck  it 
out,  and  cast  it  from  thee:  for  it  is  profitable  for  thee  that 
one  of  thy  members  should  perish,  and  not  thy  whole  body  be 
cast  into  hell."  These  words  certainly  teach  that  there  is  a 
hell.  If  there  is  no  hell,  these  words  of  Christ's  are  without 
meaning,  and  the  One  who  uttered  them  is  a  fool,  so  whoever 
denies  that  there  is  a  hell  makes  Jesus  out  to  have  been  a  fool. 
Again  our  Lord  Jesus  says,  in  Matt.  25  41,  "Then  shall  he  say 
also  unto  them  on  the  left  hand,  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed, 
into  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  Devil  and  his  angels." 
And  in  the  forty-sixth  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  "And 
these  shall  go  awry  into  everlasting  punishment :  but  the 
righteous  into  life  eternal."  These  words  also  certainly 
teach  that  there  is  a  hell.  The  Apostle  Paul  says,  in  2  Thess. 
I  7-9,  R.  v.,  "And  to  you  that  are  afflicted  rest  with  us,  at 
the  revelation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  from  heaven  with  the  angels 
of  His  power  in  flaming  fire,  rendering  vengeance  to  them 
that  know  not  God,  rnd  to  them  that  obey  not  the  Gospel  of 
our  Lord  Jesus:  vho  shall  sufiFer  punishment,  even  eternal 
destruction  from  tl.e  face  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory 
of  His  might."  Whm  we  come  to  see  later  what  destruc- 
tion means  in  tlic  Bible  we  will  see  that  these  verses 
also  plainly  teach  that  there  is  a  hell.  The  Apostle  Peter 
says,  in  2  Pet.  2  '.4.  9,  "For  if  God  spared  not  the  angels 
that  sinned,  but  ci^  t  them  down  to  hell,  and  delivered 
them  into  chains  ^f  darkness,  to  be  reserved  unto 
judgment  .  .  .  The  Lord  knoweth  how  to  deliver  the 
godly  out  of  temptations,  and  to  reserve  the  unjust  unto  the 

261 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

day  of  judgment  to  be  punished."  These  words  certainly 
teach  that  there  is  a  hell.  The  Apostle  John  says,  in  Rev. 
20:15,  "And  whosoever  was  not  found  written  in  the  book  of 
life  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire."  These  words  teach  that 
there  is  a  hell.  Our  Lord  Jesus  says  once  more,  in  Rev.  21 :8, 
after  He  Himself  has  died  and  gone  down  into  the  abode  of  the 
dead  and  come  up  therefrom  and  risen  and  ascended  to  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father — He  certainly  knows  now  what 
He  is  talking  about — ''But  the  fearful,  and  unbelieving,  and 
the  abominable,  and  murderers,  and  whoremongers,  and 
sorcerers,  and  idolaters,  and  all  liars,  shall  have  their  part  in 
the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone :  which  is  the 
second  death."  These  words  certainly  teach  that  there  is  a 
heii.  All  these  passages,  taken  in  their  context,  point  unmis- 
takably to  a  hell,  and  to  a  hell  that  is  not  merely  a  condition, 
but  a  place,  and  a  place  of  awful  and  prolonged  conscious 
suffering. 

n.  In  the  second  place,  the  Bible  teaches  that  hell  is 
A  PLACE  OF  EXTREME  BODILY  SUFFERING.  That  is  plain  from 
many  passages  in  the  New  Testament.  But  a  few  illustra- 
tions will  serve  our  present  purpose.  The  commonest  words 
used  in  the  Bible  to  express  the  doom  of  the  impenitent  are 
''death"  and  "destruction."  They  constantly  recur.  Now  what 
do  "death"  and  "destruction"  mean?  God  always  takes  pains 
to  define  His  terms  and  He  has  defined  these  terms.  We  will 
find  God's  definition  of  destruction  by  a  comparison  of  Rev. 
17:8  with  Rev.  19:20  and  Rev.  20:10.  In  Rev.  17:8  wc  are 
told  that  the  beast  shall  "go  into  perdition."  The  word  here 
translated  "perdition"  is  the  same  word  which  is  elsewhere 
translated  "destruction,"  and  ought  to  be  so  translated  here, 
or  else  it  ought  to  be  translated  differently  in  the  other 
passages.    Now  if  we  can  find  where  the  beast  goes,  we  will 

262 


Future  Punishment 

have  God's  own  definition  of  "perdition"  or  "destruction."  In 
Rev.  19:20  we  are  told  tliat  the  beast  "was  cast  ahve  into  the 
lake  of  fire  burning  with  brimstone"  (R.  V.).  Now  if  we  turn 
to  Rev.  20:10  we  are  told  that  a  thousand  years  after  the  beast 
was  cast  into  the  "lake  of  fire  burning  with  brimstone"  that 
the  Devil  is  cast  into  the  same  "lalce  of  fire  burning  with 
brimstone"  where  the  beast  and  false  prophet  still  "are"  (that 
is,  they  are  there  still  after  a  thousand  years)  and  "shall  be 
tormented  day  and  night  forever  and  ever."  By  God's  own 
definition  "perdition"  or  "destruction"  is  a  portion  in  a  place 
defined  as  a  "lake  of  fire  burning  with  brimstone,"  whose  in- 
habitants are  tormented  consciously  forever  and  ever. 

We  will  find  God's  definition  of  "death"  in  Rev.  21 :8, 
"But  the  fearful,  and  unbelieving,  and  the  abominable,  and 
murderers,  and  whoremongers,  and  sorcerers,  and  idolaters, 
and  all  liars,  shall  have  their  part  in  the  lake,  which  burneth 
wdth  fire  and  brimstone :  ivhich  is  the  second  death."  God's 
definition  of  death,  therefore,  is  a  portion  in  the  lake  which 
burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone,  just  the  same  as  His  defini- 
tion of  "perdition."  It  may  be  said  that  these  statements 
are  highly  figurative.  Very  well,  let  it  go  at  that,  but  we  must 
remember  that  God's  figures  always  stand  for  facts,  and  God 
is  no  liar  and  God's  figures  never  overstate  the  facts,  and  if 
these  words  be  figures,  they  mean  at  least  this  much,  bodily 
sufifering,  and  that  of  the  intensest  kind.  We  should  remem- 
ber, furthermore,  that  in  the  next  life  we  do  not  exist  as  dis- 
embodied spirits.  All  this  theory,  so  common  today  of  the 
immortality  of  the  soul  independent  of  the  body,  where  we 
float  about  as  disembodied  spirits,  is  ethnic  philosophy,  and  not 
New  Testament  teaching.  According  to  the  Bible,  in  the  world 
to  come  the  redeemed  spirit  is  clothed  upon  with  a  body, 
not  this  same  body,  it  is  true,  a  radically  dififerent  body,  but 

263 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Tiveology 

still  a  body,  perfect  counterpart  of  the  redeemed  spirit  that 
inhabits  it  and  partaker  with  it  in  all  its  blessedness.  On  the 
other  hand,  according  to  the  Bible,  there  is  a  resurrection  of 
the  unjust  as  well  as  of  the  just  (John  5  :28,  29),  and  the  lost 
spirit  is  clothed  upon  with  a  body,  not  the  same  body  with 
which  it  is  clothed  in  the  present  life,  but  a  body,  perfect  coun- 
terpart of  the  lost  spirit  that  inhabits  it  and  partaker  with  it 
in  all  its  misery. 

II.  The  Bible  teaches  that  HELL  IS  A  PLACE  OF 
MEMORY  AND  REMORSE.  Our  Lord  Jesus  has  given 
ws  a  picture  in  Luke  16:19-31  (there  is  no  indication  in 
the  narrative  that  it  is  merely  a  parable)  of  the  condi- 
tion of  a  lu^l  man  after  death.  It  is  true  that  this  pic- 
ture has  to  do  with  the  intermediate  state,  that  is,  the 
condition  of  the  lost  before  the  final  judgment  of  the 
great  White  Throne,  but  it  clearly  indicates  what  will  be 
the  condition  after  that  also.  In  the  picture  which  Christ 
has  given  us  of  the  rich  man  in  Hades,  Abraham  said  to  the 
rich  man  "Remember."  The  rich  man  had  not  taken  much 
that  he  had  on  earth  with  him  into  Hades,  but  he  had  taken 
one  thing;  he  had  taken  his  memory.  And  men  and  women 
today  who  go  on  in  sin  and  therefore  are  doomed  to  spend 
eternity  in  hell,  will  not  take  much  with  them  that  they 
have  in  their  present  life,  but  they  will  take  one  thing,  they 
will  take  their  memories.  Men  will  remember  the  women 
whose  lives  they  have  blasted  and  ruined,  and  women  will 
remember  the  lives  they  have  squandered  in  fashion  and  fri- 
volity and  foolishness  that  they  ought  to  have  lived  for  God. 
Ever>'one  will  remember  the  Christ  they  have  rejected  and 
the  opportunities  for  salvation  which  they  have  despised. 
There  is  no  torment  known  to  man  like  the  torment  of  an 
accusing  memory.    I  have  seen,  in  my  office  in  Chicago,  strong 

264 


Future  Punuhment 

men  weeping  like  children.  What  was  the  matter?  Memory! 
I  have  seen  one  of  the  brainiest,  nerviest,  strongest  men  I 
ever  knew  throw  himself  upon  the  floor  of  my  office  and  roll 
and  sob  and  groan  and  wail.  What  was  the  matter?  Mem- 
ory !  I  have  had  men  and  women  hurry  up  to  me  at  the  close 
of  a  service  with  pale  cheeks,  with  drawn  lips,  with  haunted 
eyes  and  beg  a  private  conversation.  What  was  the  matter? 
Memory!  And  the  memory  and  the  conscience  that  are  not 
set  at  peace  in  the  life  that  now  is  by  the  atoning  blood  of 
Christ  and  the  pardoning  grace  of  God,  never  will  be.  Hell 
is  a  place  where  men  remember  and  suffer. 

III.  The  Bible  teaches  that  HELL  IS  A  PLACE  OF 
INSATIABLE  AND  TORMENTING  DESIRE.  Jesus 
tells  us  that  the  rich  man  in  Hades,  cried,  "Send  Laza- 
rus that  he  may  dip  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water  that 
he  may  cool  my  tongue,  for  I  am  in  anguish  in  this 
flame."  (R.  V.)  These  are  dreadful  words,  appalling 
words,  but  they  are  the  words  of  Jesus.  Hell  is  evidently 
a  place  where  desire  and  passion  exist  in  their  highest 
potency  and  where  there  is  nothing  to  gratify  them.  The  men 
and  the  women  who,  in  this  present  life,  are  living  in  sin,  or 
living  in  worldliness,  are  developing  into  ruling  power  pas- 
sions and  desires  for  which  there  is  no  gratification  in  that 
world  toward  which  they  are  hastening  on,  and  where  they 
must  spend  eternity.  Happy  is  that  man  or  woman  who,  by 
setting  their  affection  on  things  above  in  the  life  which  now 
is,  cultivates  into  ruling  power  desires  and  aspirations  for  which 
there  is  abundant  satisfaction  in  the  eternal  world  to  which 
we  are  all  going.  Wretched,  indeed,  is  that  man  or  woman, 
who,  by  living  for  sin  or  living  for  the  world,  cultivates  into 
ruling  power  passions  and  desires  for  which  there  is  no  grati- 
fication in  that  eternal  world  toward  which  they  arc  hastening 

265 


Th^  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  TJicology 

on.  What  could  more  accurately  represent  their  condition 
than  the  picture  of  a  man  in  a  scorching  flame  with  parched 
tongue  longing  for  one  drop  of  water  to  cool  his  tongue,  but 
no  water  to  be  had. 

V.  The  Bible  teaches  that  Hell  is  a  place  of  sliame  and 
contempt.  We  read  in  Daniel  12:2,  "And  many  of  them  that 
sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlast- 
ing life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt."  How 
heart  breaking  is  the  agony  of  shame.  How  many  it  drives  to 
despair,  insanity  and  suicide.  Hell  is  a  place  of  universal 
shame  where  every  inhabitant  is  dishonored,  disgraced  and 
exposed  to  everlasting  contempt  and  abhorrence. 

VI.  The  Bible  teaches  that  Hell  is  a  place  of  vile  com- 
panionships. Jesus  Christ  Himself  has  given  us  a  picture 
of  the  society  of  hell  in  Rev.  21 :8,  "But  the  fearful,  and  un- 
believing, and  the  abominable  and  murderers,  and  whore- 
mongers, and  sorcerers,  and  idolaters,  and  all  liars,  shall  have 
their  part  in  the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone." 
That  is  the  society  of  hell.  It  may  be  said  that  some  men  and 
women  of  brilliant  gifts  and  attractive  character  reject  Qirist, 
and,  therefore,  according  to  the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  must 
spend  eternity  in  hell.  This  is  true,  but  how  long  will  it  take 
the  most  gifted  man  or  woman  to  sink  in  such  a  world  as 
that  beneath  the  level  of  the  vilest  moral  leper  that  now  walks 
our  streets.  I  can  go  to  the  lowest  dives  in  Chicago  and  pick 
you  out  men  who  were  once  physicians,  lawyers,  congressmen, 
college  professors,  leading  business  men,  and  even  ministers 
of  the  Gospel,  but  who  are  now  living  with  thugs,  drunkards, 
whoremongers  and  everything  that  is  vile  and  bad.  How  did 
they  get  there?  They  began  to  sink.  And  in  such  society  as 
that  of  hell,  the  best  man  or  woman  that  ever  enters  there  will 

266 


Future   Punishment 

soon  sink  beneath  the  XextX  of  the  vilesf  that  we  know  here 
upon  earth. 

\ll.  The  Bible  teaches  that  HELL  IS  A  WORLD 
WITHOUT  HOPE.  There  are  those  that  contend  that  there 
is  hope  even  in  hell,  and  that  men  and  women  who  die  im- 
penitent will  have  another  chance  to  repent  and  be  saved.  For 
many  years  men  have  been  seeking  to  prove  this  from  the  Bible. 
I  do  not  wonder  that  men  try  to  prove  it.  I  would  to  God  that 
they  could  prove  it.  If  any  one  could  give  me  one  good  proof 
(i.  e.  Bible  proof,  for  no  other  proof  on  this  subject  is  of  any 
value)  that  there  is  hope,  even  in  hell,  and  that  those  that  die 
impenitent  will  have  another  chance,  and  that  all  will  ulti- 
mately repent  and  accept  Christ,  it  would  be  the  happiest  day 
of  my  life.  If  any  one  could  show  me  one  single  passage  of 
Scripture  that,  properly  interpreted  in  its  context  taught  that,  it 
would  bring  unspeakable  gladness  to  my  heart,  but  they  can- 
not do  it.  I  have  carefully  examined  every  passage  on  this 
subject  that  has  ever  been  produced  to  prove  that  proposition. 
I  once  thought  that  I  had  discovered  one  that  really  taught 
this,  and  I  taught  it,  but  the  time  came  when  I  found  that  the 
passage  would  not  bear  the  burden  that  I  put  upon  it  and,  with 
great  reluctance,  I  gave  up  my  doctrine  of  eternal  hope  and 
that  all  men  w^ould  ultimately  be  saved.  I  have  read  and  pond- 
ered the  best  literature  on  this  subject  in  English  and  in  Ger- 
man with  the  hope  that  I  might  find  proof  that  was  really 
satisfying,  that  even  after  death  men  might  repent  and  be 
saved,  but  at  last  I  had  to  give  up  the  hope.  It  is  said  by 
those  who  would  have  us  believe  that  there  is  hope  even  in 
hell,  that  the  word  Aionios,  translated  "everlasting,"  does  not 
necessarily  mean  never-ending.  It  is  true  that  it  does  not 
necessarily  mean  never-ending.     This  is  its  natural  meaning 

267 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

and  its  usual  meaning,  but  there  are  places  where  it  is  used 
without  the  full  significance  of  never-ending.  What  it  does 
mean,  therefore,  in  any  given  instance,  must  be  determined 
by  the  context.  In  Matt.  25  146,  we  read,  "These  shall  go  away 
into  everlasting  punishment :  but  the  righteous  into  life  eter- 
nal." The  word  which  is  translated  "everlasting"  in  the  first 
part  of  the  verse  is  the  same  as  the  word  translated  "eternal" 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  passage,  and  what  it  means  in  the  last 
half  of  the  verse,  it  must  also  mean  in  the  first  part  of  the 
verse.  But  no  one  doubts  that  in  the  last  part  of  the  verse 
it  means  absolutely  endless ;  therefore,  it  must  mean  that  in 
the  first  part  of  the  verse.  We  must  admit  that  our  Lord  was 
at  least  an  honest  man  and  He  was  too  honest  to  use  a  word 
with  one  meaning  in  one  half  of  a  verse  and  with  another 
meaning  in  the  other  half  of  the  verse.  Our  Lord  Jesus  then 
teaches  the  absolute  endlessness  of  the  future  punishment  of 
sin. 

But  this  is  not  the  worst  of  it.  There  is  another  expres- 
sion, Eis  tous  aionas  ton  aionon  (or  as  it  is  sometimes  found, 
Eis  aionas  aionon).  This  expression  is  used  twelve  times  in 
one  book,  the  last  book  in  the  Bible.  Eight  times  it  is  used 
of  the  existence  of  God  and  the  duration  of  His  reign ;  once 
of  the  duration  of  the  blessedness  of  the  righteous;  and  in 
every  remaining  instance  of  the  punishment  of  the  beast,  the 
false  prophet  and  the  impenitent.  It  cannot  be  doubted,  then, 
that  it  means  absolute  endlessness.  It  is  the  strongest  known 
expression  for  absolute  endlessness.  It  represents  not  merely 
years  tumbling  upon  years,  or  centuries  tumbling  upon  centu- 
ries, but  ages  tumbling  upon  ages  in  endless  procession.  I 
have  hunted  my  Bible  through  again  and  again  and  again  for 
one  ray  of  hope  for  men  that  died  impenitent — just  one  ray 
of  hope  that  can  be  called  such  when  the  passage  is  properly 

268 


Future   Punishment 

interpreted  by  the  right  laws  of  exegesis  and  I  have  failed 
after  years  of  search  to  find  one.  The  Bible  does  not  hold 
out  one  ray  of  hope  for  men  and  women  who  died  without 
Christ.  Any  one  who  dares  to  do  so  dares  to  do  what  God 
has  not  done,  and  takes  a  fearful  responsibility  upon  himself. 
VIII.  The  Bible  teaches  that  THE  ETERNAL  FU- 
TURE DESTINY  OF  MEN  IS  SETTLED  IN  THE 
LIFE  THAT  NOW  IS.  Jesus  says  in  John  8:21,  "Ye  shall 
die  in  your  sins :  Whither  I  go,  ye  cannot  come."  Thus 
settling  it  that  a  man  who  dies  in  sin,  dies  unsaved, 
cannot  go  where  He  does.  In  Heb.  9:27,  we  read,  *Tt 
is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  and  after  this  [that  is,  after 
d^ath,  without  an  opportunity  of  further  repentance]  the 
judgment."  We  read  in  2  Cor.  5:10,  that  *'We  must  all  ap- 
pear before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  that  every  one  m.ay 
receive  the  things  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  which 
he  has  done  whether  it  be  good  or  bad."  That  is  to  say,  '*the 
things  done  in  the  body,"  the  things  done  this  side  of  the  grave ; 
the  things  done  before  we  shuffle  off  this  mortal  coil,  are  the 
basis  of  eternal  judgment.  The  same  truth  is  clearly  implied 
in  the  words  of  our  Lord  in  John  9  4,  "I  must  work  the  works 
of  Him  that  sent  Me  while  it  is  day;  the  night  cometh  when 
no  man  can  work."  The  clear  implication  of  these  words, 
taken  in  their  context,  is  that  the  time  when  a  man  must 
work  is  this  side  the  grave.  We  read  in  Rev.  20:12,  "And 
I  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great,  stand  before  God;  and  the 
books  were  opened :  and  another  book  was  opened,  which  is 
the  book  of  life:  and  the  dead  were  judged  out  of  those  things 
which  were  wTitten  in  the  books,  accordinsr  to  their  w^orks." 
The  clear  teaching  of  this  passage  is  that  the  eternal  judgment 
of  the  Great  White  Throne  is  decided  by  what  one  has  been 
and  done  in  the  life  that  now  is.     The  Bible  does  not  con- 

2?9 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

tain  one  hint  of  another  chance.  The  only  passage  that 
might  seem  to  imply  the  possibility  of  another  chance  is  I  Pet. 
3  :i8,  19,  'Tor  Christ  also  hath  once  suffered  for  sins,  the  just 
for  the  unjust,  that  He  might  bring  us  to  God,  being  put  to 
death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit :  by  which  also 
He  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in  prison."  This  has 
been  taken  to  mean  that  Christ,  after  His  crucifixion  and  His 
death,  went  in  His  spirit  into  that  part  of  Hades  where  lost 
spirits  dwell  and  there  preached  the  Gospel  to  them,  and  it  is 
thought  by  some  to  imply  that  there  was  a  chance  of  their  re- 
pentance. I  formerly  so  interpreted  the  passage,  but,  on  fur- 
ther study,  I  found  out  that  it  did  not  so  teach.  In  the  first 
place,  "the  spirits  in  prison"  are,  presumably,  the  fallen  angels 
who  sinned  in  the  days  of  Noah  (See  Gen.  6:1,  2  cf.  Jude 
6,  7).  The  word  "spirits"  is  not  used  of  men  anywhere  in 
the  Bible  in  this  way.  However,  this  does  not  greatly  mat- 
ter, for,  in  the  second  place,  there  are  two  w^ords  translated 
"preach"  in  the  New  Testament.  One  means  to  herald,  as,  for 
example,  to  herald  the  kingdom,  and  the  other  means  to 
preach  the  Gospel.  The  word  used  in  this  passage  is  not  the 
word  that  means  to  preach  the  Gospel,  but  the  word  which 
means  to  herald,  and  the  utmost  that  the  passage  can  teach 
is  that  Jesus  went  to  the  abode  of  the  lost  dead  and  heralded 
there  the  triumph  of  the  kingdom.  It  was  not  a  Gospel  proc- 
lamation, neither  is  there  the  slightest  indication  that  any  one, 
either  angel  or  man,  repented  and  was  saved. 

Some  one  may  ask,  may  not  those  who  have  never  heard 
of  Christ  in  this  world  have  another  opportunity.  To  this 
we  must  answer,  that  there  is  not  a  line  of  Scripture  upon 
which  to  build  such  a  hope.  All  men  have  sufficient  light  to 
condemn  them  if  they  do  not  obey  it.  We  read  in  Rom.  2:12, 
16,  "For  as  many  as  have  sinned  witliout  law  shall  also  perish 

270 


Future  Punishment 

without  law :  and  as  many  as  have  sinned  in  the  law  shall  be 
judged  by  the  law.  ...  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge 
the  secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  my  Gospel." 
It  is  sometimes  strangely  imagined  that  this  passage  was  given 
to  show  how  men  are  saved  by  the  light  of  nature.  Any  one 
who  will  study  the  context  will  discover  that  it  was  given 
to  show  not  how  man  was  saved  by  the  light  of  nature,  but 
how  the  Gentile  is  under  condemnation  by  the  lav/  written  in 
his  heart,  just  as  the  Jew  is  under  condemnation  by  the 
law  of  Moses.  The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  is  found 
in  Rom.  3  119,  20,  21,  22,  23,  "Now  we  know  that  what  things 
soever  the  law  saith,  it  saith  to  them  who  are  under  the  law : 
tluit  every  mouth  may  he  stopped,  and  all  the  world  become 
guilty  before  God.  Therefore,  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there 
shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  His  sight:  for  by  the  law  is  the 
knowledge  of  sin.  But  now  the  righteousness  of  God  without 
the  law  is  manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the 
prophets ;  even  the  righteousness  of  God  which  is  by  faith  of 
Jesus  Christ  unto  all  and  upon  all  them  tJmt  believe;  for  there 
is  no  difference:  for  all  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the 
glory  of  God." 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  is  that  the  future 
state  of  those  who  reject  the  redemption  offered  to  them  in 
Jesus  Christ  is  plainly  declared  to  be  a  state  of  conscious,  un- 
utterable, endless  torment  and  anguish.  This  conception  is 
an  awful  and  appalling  one.  It  is,  however,  the  Scrip- 
tural conception  and  also  the  reasonable  one,  when  we 
come  to  see  the  appalling  nature  of  sin  and  especially  the 
appalling  nature  of  the  sin  of  trampling  under  foot  God's 
mercy  toward  sinners  and  rejecting  God's  glorious  Son  Whom 
His  love  has  provided  as  a  Saviour.  Shallow  views  of  sin  and 
of  God's  holiness  and  of  the  infinite  glory  of  Jesus  Christ 

271 


The  Higher  Criticism   and  The  New  Theology 

and  of  His  claims  upon  us  lie  at  the  bottom  of  weak  theories 
of  the  doom  of  the  impenitent.  When  we  see  sin  in  all  its 
hideousness  and  enormity,  the  holiness  of  God  in  all  its  per- 
fection, and  the  majesty  and  glory  of  Jesus  Christ  in  all  its 
infinity,  nothing  but  a  doctrine  that  those  who  persist  in  the 
choice  of  sin,  who  love  darkness  rather  than  light  and  who 
persist  in  the  rejection  of  the  Son  of  God,  shall  endure  ever- 
lasting anguish,  will  satisfy  the  demands  of  our  own  moral 
intuitions.  Nothing  but  the  fact  that  we  dread  suffering 
more  than  we  loathe  sin  and  more  than  we  love  the  glory 
of  Jesus  Christ  makes  us  repudiate  the  thought  that  beings 
who  eternally  choose  sin  shall  eternally  suffer,  or  that  men 
who  despise  God's  mercy  and  spurn  His  Son  shall  be  given 
over  to  endless  anguish. 

But  some  one  will  ask,  What  about  our  impenitent  friends 
and  loved  ones?  To  these  we  would  answer,  it  is  better  to 
recognize  facts,  no  matter  how  unwelcome  they  may  be  and 
to  try  to  save  those  friends  from  the  doom  to  which  they  are 
certainly  hurrying  on,  than  to  quarrel  with  facts  and  seek 
to  remove  them  by  shutting  our  eyes  to  them.  Furthermore, 
if  we  love  Christ  supremely,  as  we  should  love  Him,  and 
realized  His  infinite  glory  and  His  suprem.e  claims  upon  man, 
as  we  should  realize  them,  then  will  we  say,  if  even  the  dearest 
friend  we  have  on  earth  persists  in  trampling  this  infinitely 
glorious  Christ  under  foot,  he  ought  to-  be  banished  from 
the  presence  of  God  and  to  suflFer  forever  and  ever.  If  some 
one  you  greatly  love  should  commit  some  hideous  wrong 
against  one  whom  you  loved  still  more  and  persist  eternally 
in  that  wrong,  would  you  not  consent  to  his  eternal  separa- 
tion from  the  one  whom  he  seeks  to  wrong  and  to  his  eternal 
suffering?  If,  after  men  have  sinned  against  God  and  God 
still  offers  them  mercy  and  makes  the  tremendous  sacrifice  of 

273 


Fuiitre   Punishment 

His  Son  to  save  them,  if  they  still  despise  that  mercy  and 
trample  God's  Son  under  foot,  if  then  they  are  consigned  to 
everlasting  torment,  all  right-minded  people,  all  persons  who 
are  in  sympathy  with  God  and  His  righteous  government, 
must  exclaim,  "Amen!  Hallelujah!  True  and  righteous  are 
Thy  judgments,  O  Lord!" 

At  all  events,  the  doctrine  of  the  conscious,  endless  suf- 
fering of  persistently  impenitent  man  is  clearly  revealed  in 
the  Word  of  God,  and  whether  we  can  defend  it  on  philo- 
sophical grounds  or  not,  it  is  our  business  to  believe  it  and 
to  proclaim  it  and  to  leave  it  to  the  clear  light  of  eternity  to 
explain  what  we  cannot  now  understand,  realizing  that  an 
infinitely  wise  God  may  have  many  infinitely  wise  reasons  for 
doing  things  for  which  we,  in  our  ignorance,  can  see  no 
sufficient  reason  at  all.  It  is  the  most  unpardonable  conceit 
for  beings,  so  limited  in  knowledge,  and  so  foolish,  as  the 
wisest  of  men  are,  to  attempt  to  dogmatize  how  a  God  of 
infinite  wisdom  must  act.  All  we  know  about  how  God  will 
act  is  what  God  has  been  pleased  to  reveal  to  us. 

Two  things  are  certain.  First,  the  more  closely  men 
walk  with  God  and  the  more  devoted  they  become  to  His  ser- 
vice, the  more  likely  are  they  to  believe  this  doctrine.  There 
are  many  who  tell  us  that  they  love  their  fellowmen  too  much 
to  believe  this  doctrine,  but  the  men  who  show  their  love  in 
more  practical  ways  than  sentimental  protestations  about  it, 
the  men  who  show  their  love  for  their  fellowmen  as  Jesus 
Christ  showed  His  love,  by  laying  down  their  lives  for  them, 
they  believe  the  doctrine.  And  what  is  more  to  the  point, 
Jesus  Christ  Himself  believed  it  and  taught  it,  and  surely  no 
one  of  us  would  think  of  comparing  our  love  to  our  fellow- 
men with  His  love  to  man.  As  professed  Christians  become 
worldly  and   easy-going   they   grow   loose    in   their   doctrint 

•f3 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

concerning  the  doom  of  the  impenitent.  The  fact  that  loose 
doctrines  regarding  future  punishment  are  spreading  so  rap- 
idly and  so  widely  in  the  church  in  our  day  is  nothing  in  their 
favor.  It  is  rather  against  them, ..  for  who  can  deny  that 
worldliness  is  also  spreading  in  the  church.  (See  i  Tim.  4:1  ; 
2  Tim.  3:1;  4:2,  3.)  Increasing  laxity  of  life  and  increas- 
ing laxity  of  doctrine  go  arm  in  arm.  The  church  that 
dances  and  frequents  theatres  and  plays  cards  and  lives  in  all 
manner  of  self-indulgence  during  the  week,  enjoys  a  doctrine 
on  the  Lord's  Day  that  makes  the  punishment  of  the  wicked 
not  so  awful  after  all. 

The  second  thing  that  is  certain  is  that  those  who  accept 
a  loose  doctrine  regarding  the  ultimate  penalty  of  sin  (whether 
it  be  restorationism,  or  universalism  or  annihilation,  or  mil- 
lennial dawnism,  or  whatever  it  may  be)  lose  their  power  for 
God.  They  often  are  very  clever  at  argument  and  zealous  in 
proselyting,  but  they  are  always  poor  at  soul-saving.  They 
are  seldom  found  beseeching  men  to  be  reconciled  to  God. 
They  are  far  more  likely  to  be  found  trying  to  upset  the  faith 
of  those  already  won  by  the  efforts  of  others  than  trying  to 
win  men  who  have  no  faith  at  all.  If  you  really  believe  the 
doctrine  of  the  endless,  conscious  suffering  of  the  persist- 
ently impenitent,  and  the  doctrine  really  gets  hold  of  you, 
you  will  work  as  you  never  worked  before  for  the  salvation 
of  the  lost.  If  you,  in  any  wise  abate  the  doctrine,  it  will 
abate  your  zeal.  Time  and  time  again,  the  writer  of  these 
pages  has  come  up  to  this  appalling  doctrine  and  tried  to  find 
some  way  to  escape  from  it,  but  when  he  has  failed  to  find 
such  a  way  of  escape  (as  he  always  has  in  the  final  outcome 
when  he  was  honest  with  the  Bible  and  with  himself)  he  has 
returned  to  his  work  with  an  increased  burden  for  souls  and 
an  intensified  determination  to  spend  and  be  spent  for  their 
salvation. 

^4 


CHAPTER  XIII 

TRIBUTES  TO  CHRIST  AND  THE  BIBLE  BY  BRAINY 
MEN  NOT  KNOWN  AS  ACTIVE  CHRISTIANS 

''Their  rock  is  not  as  our  Rock,  even  our  enemies  them- 
selves being  judges." — Deut.  32:^1. 

BENJAMIN    FRANKLIN 

"Young  man,  my  advice  to  you  is  that  you  cultivate  an 
acquaintance  with  and  firm  belief  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  for 
this  is  your  certain  interest.  I  think  Christ's  system  of  morals 
and  religion,  as  He  left  them  with  us,  the  best  the  world  ever 
saw  or  is  likely  to  see." 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON 

'T  have  said  and  always  will  say  that  the  studious  perusal 
of  the  sacred  volume  will  make  better  citizens,  better  fathers, 
and  better  husbands." 

DANIEL   WEBSTER 

"If  we  abide  by  the  principles  taught  in  the  Bible,  our 
country  will  go  on  prospering  and  to  prosper ;  but,  if  we  and 
our  posterity  neglect  its  instructions  and  authority,  no  man  can 
tell  how  sudden  a  catastrophe  may  overwhelm  us  and  bury  all 

275 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   TJie  Xcz^i  Theology 

our  glory  in  profound  obscurity.  The  Bible  is  the  book  of  all 
others  for  lawyers  as  well  as  divines,  and  I  pity  the  man  who 
cannot  find  in  it  a  rich  supply  of  thought  and  rule  of  conduct. 
I  believe  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  The  miracles 
which  He  wrought  establish,  in  my  mind,  His  personal  au- 
thority and  render  it  proper  for  me  to  believe  what  He  as- 
serts." 

NAPOLEON    BONAPARTE 

'T  know  men,  and  I  tell  you  Jesus  Christ  was  not  a  man. 
Superficial  minds  see  a  resemblance  between  Christ  and  the 
founders  of  empires  and  the  gods  of  other  religions.  That 
resemblance  does  not  exist.  There  is  between  Christianity  and 
other  religions  the  distance  of  infinity.  Alexander,  Csesar, 
Charlemagne  and  myself  founded  empires.  But  on  what  did 
we  rest  the  creations  of  our  genius?  Upon  sheer  force.  Jesus 
Christ  alone  founded  His  empire  upon  love;  and  at  this  hour 
millions  of  men  will  die  for  Him.  In  every  other  existence  but 
that  of  Christ  how  many  imperfections !  From  the  first  day 
to  the  last  He  is  the  same;  majestic  and  simple;  infinitely  firm 
and  infinitely  gentle.  He  proposes  to  our  faith  a  series  of  mys- 
teries and  commands  with  authority  that  we  should  believe 
them,  giving  no  other  reason  than  those  tremendous  words, 
T  am  God.^ 

'The  Bible  contains  a  complete  series  of  acts  and  of  his- 
torical men  to  explain  time  and  eternity,  such  as  no  other  re- 
ligion has  to  offer.  If  it  is  not  true  religion,  one  is  very 
excusable  in  being  deceived ;  for  everything  in  it  is  grand  and 
worthy  of  God.  The  more  I  consider  the  Gospel,  the  more 
I  am  assured  that  there  is  nothing  there  v/hich  is  not  beyond 
the  march  of  events  and  above  the  human  mind.  Even  the 
impious  themselves  have  never  dared  to  deny  the  sublimity  of 

2;6 


Tributes  to   Christ  and   the  Bible 

the  Gospel,  which  inspires  them  with  a  sort  of  compulsory 
veneration.  What  happiness  that  Book  procures  for  those 
who  believe  it !" 


GOETHE 

'*It  is  a  belief  in  the  Bible  which  has  served  me  as  the 
guide  of  my  moral  and  literary  life.  No  criticism  will  be  able 
to  perplex  the  confidence  which  we  have  entertained  of  a 
writing  whose  contents  have  stirred  up  and  given  life  to  our 
vital  energy  by  its  own.  The  farther  the  ages  advance  in 
civilization  the  more  will  the  Bible  be  used." 


THOMAS   CARLYLE 

"Jesus  is  our  divinest  symbol.  Higher  has  the  human 
thought  not  yet  reached.  A  symbol  of  quite  perennial,  infinite 
character :  whose  significance  will  ever  demand  to  be  anew  in- 
quired into  and  anew  made  manifest." 

JAMES     ANTHONY    FROUDE 

*'The  most  perfect  being  who  has  ever  trod  the  soil  of  this 
planet  was  called  the  Man  of  Sorrows." 

CHARLES  DICKENS  IN  HIS  WILL 

"I  commit  my  soul  to  the  mercy  of  God,  through  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  exhort  my  dear  children  humbly 
to  try  to  guide  themselves  by  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testar 
ment" 

277 


The  Higher  Criticism   and   The  Nezv  Theology 

SHAKESPEARE    IN    HIS    WILL 

"I  commend  my  soul  into  the  hands  of  God,  my  Creator, 
hoping  and  assuredly  believing,  through  the  only  merits  of 
Jesus  Christ,  my  Saviour,  to  be  made  partaker  of  life  ever- 
lasting." 

LORD   BYRON 

"If  ever  man  was  God,  or  God  man,  Jesus  Christ  was 
both." 

MATTHEW  ARNOLD 

"To  the  Bible  men  will  return  because  they  cannot  do 
without  it.  The  true  God  is  and  must  be  pre-eminently  the 
God  of  the  Bible,  the  eternal  who  makes  for  righteousness, 
from  whom  Jesus  came  forth,  and  whose  spirit  governs  the 
course  of  humanity." 

DIDEROT 

"No  better  lessons  can  I  teach  my  child  than  those  of  the 
Bible." 

PROFESSOR  HUXLEY 

"I  have  always  been  strongly  in  favor  of  secular  educatioi. 
without  theology,  but  I  must  confess  that  I  have  been  no  less 
seriously  perplexed  to  know  by  what  practical  measures  the 
religious  feeling,  which  is  the  essential  basis  of  moral  conduct, 
is  to  be  kept  up  in  the  present  utterly  chaotic  state  of  opinion 
on  these  matters  without  the  use  of  the  Bible." 

278 


Tributes  to   Christ  and   the  Bible 

JOHN  STUART  MILL 

*'Who  among  His  disciples,  or  among  their  proselytes, 
was  capable  of  inventing  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  or  imagining  the 
life  and  character  ascribed  to  Him?  Certainly  not  the  fisher- 
men of  Galilee;  as  certainly  not  Saint  Paul,  whose  character 
and  idiosyncrasies  were  of  a  totally  different  sort;  and  still 
less  the  early  Qiristian  writers.  When  this  pre-eminent 
genius  is  combined  with  the  qualities  of  probably  the  greatest 
moral  reformer  and  martyr  to  His  mission  who  ever  existed 
upon  earth,  religion  cannot  be  said  to  have  made  a  bad  choice 
in  pitching  on  this  man  as  the  ideal  representative  and  guide 
of  humanity;  nor  even  now  would  it  be  easy,  even  for  an 
unbeliever,  to  find  a  better  translation  of  the  rule  of  virtue 
from  the  abstract  into  the  concrete,  than  to  endeavor  so  to 
live  that  Christ  would  approve  his  life." 

ROUSSEAU 

"Can  it  be  possible  that  the  sacred  personage  whose  his- 
tory the  Scriptures  contain  should  be  a  mere  man?  Where  is 
the  man,  where  the  philosopher,  who  could  so  live  and  so 
die  Vv'ithout  weakness  and  without  ostentation?  When  Plato 
describes  his  imaginary  righteous  man,  loaded  with  all  the 
punishments  of  guilt,  yet  meriting  the  highest  rewards  of  vir- 
tue, he  exactly  describes  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ.  What 
an  infinite  disproportion  between  the  son  of  Sophroniscus  and 
the  Son  of  Mary.  Socrates  dies  with  honor,  surrounded  by  his 
disciples  listening  to  the  most  tender  words — the  easiest  death 
that  one  could  wish  to  die.  Jesus  dies  in  pain,  dishonor,  mock- 
ery, the  object  of  universal  cursing — the  most  horrible  death 

279 


The  Higfier  CriticisfH  and  The  New  Theology 

that  one  could  fear.  At  the  receipt  of  the  cup  of  poison, 
Socrates  blesses  him  who  could  not  give  it  to  him  without 
tears ;  Jesus,  while  suffering  the  sharpest  pains,  prays  for  His 
most  bitter  enemies.  If  Socrates  lived  and  died  like  a  phi- 
losopher, Jesus  lived  and  died  like  a  god. 

"Peruse  the  books  of  philosophers  with  all  their  pomp  of 
diction.  How  meager,  how  contemptible  are  they  when  com- 
pared with  the  Scriptures?  The  majesty  of  the  Scriptures 
strikes  me  with  admiration.'* 


PECAUT 

"Christ's  moral  character  rose  beyond  comparison  above 
that  of  any  other  great  man  of  antiquity.  No  one  was  ever  so 
gentle,  so  humble,  so  kind  as  He.  In  His  spirit  He  lived  in  the 
house  of  His  heavenly  Father.  His  moral  life  is  wholly  pene- 
trated by  God.  He  was  the  master  of  all,  because  He  was 
really  their  brother." 

ERNEST    RENAN 

"All  history  is  incomprehensible  without  Him.  He  cre- 
ated the  object  and  fixed  the  starting  point  of  the  future  faith 
of  humanity.  He  is  the  incomparable  man  to  whom  the  uni- 
versal conscience  has  decreed  the  title  of  Son  of  God,  and 
that  with  justice. 


fSo 


CHAPTER  XIV 
A  PERSONAL  TESTIMONY 

BY  HOWARD   A.    KELLY,    M.  D. 

(To  those  who  have  believed  that  faith  in  the  Bible  and 
the  God  of  the  Bible  does  not  harmonize  with  the  modem 
scientific  spirit  the  following  testimony  from  a  distinguished 
physician  and  surgeon  should  be  of  great  value. 

The  Editor  of  Appleton's  Magazine  says  of  Dr.  Kelly : 

''Dr.  Howard  Kelly,  of  Baltimore,  holds  a  position  almost 
tmiqiie  in  his  profession.  With  academic,  professional,  and 
honorary  degrees  from  the  Universities  of  Pennsylvania, 
Washington  and  Lee,  Aberdeen,  and  Edinburgh,  his  rank  as 
a  scholar  is  clearly  recognised.  For  some  twenty  years  Pro- 
fessor of  obstetrics  and  gynecology  at  Johns  Hopkins  Univer- 
sity, his  place  as  a  worker  and  teacher  in  the  applied  science  of 
his  profession  has  been  beyond  question  the  highest  in  Amer- 
ica and  Europe.  At  least  a  dozen  learned  societies  in  England, 
Scotland,  Ireland,  Italy,  Germany,  Austria,  France  and  the 
United  States  have  welcomed  him  to  membership  as  a  master 
in  his  specialty  in  surgery.  Finally,  his  published  works  have 
caused  him  to  be  reckoned  the  most  eminent  of  all  authorities 
in  his  own  field.") 

I  have,  within  the  past  twenty  years  of  my  life,  come  out 
of  uncertainty  and  doubt  into  a  faith  which  is  an  absolute 
dominating  conviction  of  the  truth  and  about  which  I  have 

281 


The  Higher  Criticism  and  The  New  Theology 

not  a  shadow  of  doubt.  I  have  been  intimately  associated  with 
eminent  scientific  workers;  have  heard  them  discuss  the  pro- 
foundest  questions ;  have  myself  engaged  in  scientific  work, 
and  so  know  the  value  of  such  opinions.  I  was  once  pro- 
foundly disturbed  in  the  traditional  faith  in  which  I  have  been 
brought  up — that  of  a  Protestant  Episcopalian — by  inroads 
which  were  made  upon  the  book  of  Genesis  by  the  higher 
critics.  I  could  not  then  gainsay  them,  not  knowing  Hebrew 
nor  archaeology  well,  and  to  me,  as  to  many,  to  pull  out  one 
great  prop  was  to  make  the  whole  foundation  imcertain. 

So  I  floundered  on  for  some  years  trying,  as  some  of  my 
higher  critical  friends  are  trying  today,  to  continue  to  use  the 
Bible  as  the  Word  of  Gk)d  and  at  the  same  time  holding  it 
of  composite  authorship,  a  curious  and  disastrous  piece  of 
mental  gymnastics — a  bridge  over  the  chasm  separating  an 
older  Bible-loving  generation  from  a  newer  Bible-emancipated 
race.  I  saw  in  the  book  a  great  light  and  glow  of  heat,  yet 
shivered  out  in  the  cold. 

One  day  it  occurred  to  xne  to  see  what  the  book  had  to 
say  about  itself.  As  a  short,  but  perhaps  not  the  best  method, 
I  took  a  concordance  and  looked  out  "Word,"  when  I  found 
that  the  Bible  claimed  from  one  end  to  the  other  to  be  the 
authoritative  Word  of  God  to  man.  I  then  tried  the  natural 
plan  of  taking  it  as  my  text-book  of  religion,  as  I  would  use 
a  text-book  in  any  science,  testing  it  by  submitting  to  its  con- 
ditions. I  found  that  Christ  Himself  invites  men  (John  7:17) 
to  do  this. 

I  now  believe  the  Bible  to  be  the  inspired  Word  of  God, 
inspired  in  a  sense  utterly  different  from  that  of  any  merely 
human  book. 

I  believe  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  without 
282 


A   Personal   Testimony 

human  father,  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Vir- 
gin Mary.  That  all  men  without  exception  are  by  nature 
sinners,  alienated  from  God,  and  when  thus  utterly  lost  in  sin 
the  Son  of  God  Himself  came  down  to  earth,  and  by  shedding 
His  blood  upon  the  cross  paid  the  infinite  penalty  of  the  guilt 
of  the  whole  world.  I  believe  he  who  thus  receives  Jesus 
Christ  as  his  Saviour  is  born  again  spiritually  as  definitely  as 
in  his  first  birth,  and,  so  born  spiritually,  has  new  privileges, 
appetites  and  affections;  that  he  is  one  body  with  Christ  the 
Head  and  will  live  with  Him  forever.  I  believe  no  man  can 
save  himself  by  good  works,  or  what  is  commonly  known 
as  a  "moral  life,"  such  works  being  but  the  necessary  fruits 
and  evidence  of  the   faith   within. 

Satan  I  believe  to  be  the  cause  of  man's  fall  and  sin,  and 
his  rebellion  against  God  as  rightful  governor.  Satan  is  the 
Prince  of  all  the  kingdoms  of  this  world,  yet  will  in  the  end  be 
cast  into  the  pit  and  made  harmless.  Christ  will  come  again 
in  glory  to  earth  to  reign  even  as  He  went  away  from  the 
earth,  and  I  look  for  His  return  day  by  day. 

I  believe  the  Bible  to  be  God's  Word,  because,  as  I  use  it 
day  by  day  as  spiritual  food,  I  discover  in  my  own  life  as  well 
as  in  the  lives  of  those  who  likewise  use  it  a  transformation 
correcting  evil  tendencies,  purifying  affections,  giving  pure  de- 
sires, and  teaching  that  concerning  the  righteousness  of  God 
which  those  who  do  not  so  use  it  can  know  nothing  of.  It  is 
as  really  food  for  the  spirit  as  bread  is  for  the  body. 

Perhaps  one  of  my  strongest  reasons  for  believing  the 
Bible  is  that  it  reveals  to  me,  as  no  other  book  in  the  world 
could  do,  that  which  appeals  to  me  as  a  physician,  a  diagnosis 
of  my  spiritual  condition.  It  shows  me  clearly  what  T  am  by 
nature — one  lost  in  sin  and  alienated  from  the  life  thai  is  in 

283 


The  Higher  Criticism  and   The  Nczv  Theology 

God.  I  find  in  it  a  consistent  and  wonderful  revelation,  from 
Genesis  to  Revelation,  of  the  character  of  God,  a  God  far  re- 
moved from  any  of  my  natural  imaginings. 

It  also  reveals  a  tenderness  and  nearness  of  God  in  Christ 
which  satisfies  the  heart's  longings,  and  shows  me  that  the 
infinite  God,  Creator  of  the  world,  took  our  very  nature  upon 
Him  that  He  might  in  infinite  love  be  one  with  His  people  to 
redeem  them.  I  believe  in  it  because  it  reveals  a  religion 
adapted  to  all  classes  and  races,  and  it  is  intellectual  suicide 
knowing  it,  not  to  believe  it. 

What  it  means  to  me  is  as  intimate  and  difficult  a  question 
to  answer  as  to  be  required  to  give  reasons  for  love  of  father 
and  mother,  wife  and  children.  But  this  reasonable  faith  gives 
me  a  different  relation  to  family  and  friends ;  greater  tender- 
ness to  these  and  deeper  interest  in  all  men.  It  takes  away 
the  fear  of  death  and  creates  a  bond  with  those  gone  before. 
It  shows  me  God  as  a  Father  who  perfectly  understands,  who 
can  give  control  of  appetites  and  affections,  and  rouse  one  to 
fight  with  self  instead  of  being  self-contented. 

And  if  faith  so  reveals  God  to  me  I  go  without  question, 
wherever  He  may  lead  me.  I  can  put  His  assertions  and 
commands  above  every  seeming  probability  in  life,  dismissing 
cherished  convictions  and  looking  upon  the  wisdom  and  ratio- 
cinations of  men  as  folly  if  opposed  to  Him.  I  place  no  limits 
to  faith  when  once  vested  in  God,  the  sum  of  all  wisdom  and 
knowledge,  and  can  trust  Him  though  I  should  have  to  stand 
alone  before  the  world  in  declaring  Him  to  be  tru«. 


Date  Due 

f 

'^•>  - 

Snv-^i 

.J\ 

Al^ 

-W«JM""* 

__  ^,  .  iir-« 

^ 

BS500 .T&9 

The  Higher  criticism  and  the  new 


